2006-04-28

Government Orders
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):  moved that Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the long-standing lack of legislative framework within which the federal government can exercise its authority over international bridges and tunnels.
I am very pleased to begin the debate today on Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. This bill includes a number of measures that reinforce and acknowledge that our economic well-being increasingly depends on strategic gateways and trade corridors.
 The capacity to create jobs and strengthen Canada's economy is directly linked to our ability to ensure the efficient flow of trade with our greatest trading partner, the United States, but today's bill also recognizes the importance of secure borders and that securing our borders begins with securing our border crossings.
There are currently 24 bridges and tunnels that carry vehicular traffic across the 6,400 kilometre border between Canada and the United States. There are also five rail bridges and tunnels linking our two countries. More than $1.9 billion worth of goods moves across the border each day. These crossings are a critical part of the infrastructure that facilitates trade between our two nations. 
Well-operated border crossings mean more trade, a stronger economy and jobs for all Canadians. The federal government, therefore, has a critical role to play in ensuring that the way in which these bridges and tunnels are operated does not interfere in any way with the uninterrupted flow of goods and people across the border. Equally important is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that our national interests are protected, that our borders are secure and that people can use our bridges and tunnels in safety. 
The federal government's jurisdiction over all international crossings is set out in section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867. However, the federal government's ability to exercise this authority has never been set out in framework legislation.
With events such as September 11th, I think the hon. members would agree that Canada's international bridges and tunnels cannot be left to ad hoc decision-making processes. They must be carefully and strategically operated. 
It is time for the Government of Canada to put in place a legislative framework so that it can carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities, efficiently, effectively and coherently.To that end, the bill we are debating today draws on the provisions related to international bridges and tunnels contained in the two previously introduced bills.
The international bridges and tunnels act would provide the Government of Canada with the legislative authority required to effectively oversee these bridges and tunnels and to protect the interests of Canadians. Today's bill also possesses two new provisions in response to critical issues that have recently emerged in relation to international bridges and tunnels. 
I would like to begin by introducing some of the more significant provisions in the bill.
First of all, unlike the United States, Canada does not have a formal process to approve the construction of new international crossings. In the past, we have enacted specific legislation on a case by case basis. Fourteen of the 24 crossings were created by special acts of Parliament designed and adapted to fit the conditions specific to each case. Given that there are currently three proposals for new international crossings, at St. Stephen in New Brunswick and at Fort Erie and Windsor in Ontario, addressing this legislative gap is particularly critical at this time. 
Today's bill will begin the process of ensuring that we have the necessary powers to grant approval to build these new crossings. It would also give the federal government the authority to impose whatever terms and conditions are needed to protect the public interest.
More specifically, the bill recommends that the governor in council be given the authority to approve the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels as well as the authority to establish conditions for their construction, operation and maintenance. By eliminating the need for individual independent acts of Parliament for each particular bridge, this new legislation would clarify and streamline the approval process.
The development of new crossings is a complex undertaking, requiring negotiations between provincial, state and federal governments on both sides of the border.
A more streamlined process within the Government of Canada—comparable to that which is already in place in the United States—would bring greater efficiency to the overall process.
One of the more significant challenges of the current ad hoc system is that there are widespread inconsistencies on key issues across the international bridge portfolio. The way in which the bridges and tunnels deal with functional safety, maintenance and security vary significantly between the different bridge and tunnel operators. Such widespread inconsistencies on critical issues directly affect the federal government's ability to act quickly, decisively and accurately on key public issues.
Therefore the second provision I would like to highlight in this new legislation would give the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations for all matters related to safety and security of international bridges and tunnels. The Governor in Council would also be able to make regulations respecting the operation of these crossings, such as the efficient and competitive flow of international traffic to ensure it is not jeopardized.
Ensuring that international traffic flows freely across the border not only affects the bottom line of businesses that depend on just-in-time delivery, it also reduces unnecessary carbon dioxide and other emissions that result from traffic congestion and delays at the border.
A clean environment is important to all Canadians. This is why, under the proposed legislative framework, the federal government will be able to ensure that environmental assessments with respect to international bridges and tunnels are conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when appropriate.
Environmental considerations must be fully integrated into all projects, so that future generations of Canadians enjoy clean air, water and land. 
This is particularly important for projects that directly affect our waterways and influence the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, I would like to highlight the two new provisions that did not appear in the previously introduced bills. The first new provision concerns crossings over the St. Lawrence River. In the current legislative structure, any new bridge over the St. Lawrence River requires a special act of Parliament. 
By specifying that the proposed international bridges and tunnels act is applicable to international bridges and tunnels crossing the St. Lawrence River, any such bridges or tunnels will be subject to the government's approval process as outlined by the act. This provision would support the current initiative to construct a new low level bridge in Cornwall, Ontario by streamlining the approval process and removing the burden of the current requirement for a special act of Parliament.
The second new provision would give the federal government the authority to approve all transactions affecting the ownership or control and operation of international bridges and tunnels. Given the critical importance of these crossings, the federal government has a clear role to play in protecting national interests and public policy objectives when ownership or operation of these structures is transferred.
With the proposed sale of the bridge between Fort Frances, Ontario and International Falls, Minnesota, as well as the possible sale of the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, it is critical that the federal government have the authority to intervene as needed to protect our national interests.
This bill is important because transportation is one of the core elements that contributes to Canada's economic success. I think the hon. members will agree that in an age when over 70% of our trade flows to the United States, Canada's international crossings are crucial to our economic well-being.
International bridges and tunnels represent critical gateways and key trade corridors through which our trade with the United States flows. As such, they are vital to Canada's success as a trading nation and will continue to be an important element of prosperity for future generations.
The introduction of this bill represents an important opportunity to finally put into place a clear and consistent framework for the exercise of federal government jurisdiction over international crossings. This bill will also help us fulfill our responsibility to protect the safety of Canadians and ensure our national security.
We must continue to be flexible and responsive in legislating our transportation system. Too much is at stake to stand still or rely on old ways of thinking.
I urge all members to support this bill, so that the Government of Canada can effectively protect our national and international interests, build upon the many successes of our transportation system and facilitate Canada's growth as a nation.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to disagree with the bill because it is, so far as I can tell, the same as the Liberal bill that was before Parliament before the election. It sounds extraordinarily familiar.
Could the minister tell us whether there are any substantive differences between his bill and the one we presented previously?
I would also like to say that Canada-U.S. trade is the lifeblood of the country. Millions and millions of jobs are at stake and in terms of the efficient functioning of trade between the two countries, efficiency of transportation infrastructure is critical, which is what the bill is about, but how our goods are received at the border by the customs officials is equally important.
In light of the agreement on forestry and given that this Canada-U.S. trade is the lifeblood of our economy, is it not unfortunate that yesterday's agreement abandoned the principle of free trade, moving to managed trade, because once we get to 34% and above that, zap, it is no longer free trade? I think that is a huge abandonment of the principle. Is it not also unfortunate that the agreement effectively kills the dispute settlement mechanism under NAFTA which was negotiated with huge difficulty and is critical for our future trade relations? This sets a very dangerous precedent in that the traditional dispute settlement mechanism was abandoned in this case and what is to say it will not be abandoned for other industries.
[Interjection]
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, there are two new provisions in the legislation that has been tabled before the House. The first provision, of course, is the one dealing with crossing over the St. Lawrence River and the second one clearly deals with the federal government's authority to approve all transactions affecting the ownership or control and operation of international bridges.
In this context, I find it strange to hear my hon. colleague opposite refer to the agreement Canada reached yesterday with the United States. I was expecting him to rise and congratulate us on what we had accomplished on this issue. In 13 years, the previous government did nothing to deliver the goods on this issue.
The hon. member referred extensively to a government that used to talk about softwood lumber, trade and trade agreements. I clearly remember that the former head of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Turner, vigorously opposed free trade during one election campaign. But Canadians supported the government of Mr. Mulroney and voted for greater prosperity.
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-3. However, I have two questions for the minister.
First, since the 1990s, a number of responsibilities, particularly relating to infrastructure, have been handed over to the provinces, who proceeded to delegate them to municipalities. Responsibilities have trickled down, but money has not. I want to know who will finance these infrastructure projects. 
Second, during the 1990s, when railway companies abandoned certain rail lines, the owners of those lines sold them to create greenways for cyclists and pedestrians.
The bill provides that offers to purchase will be accepted from urban transit authorities first and from municipalities last. Will selling these railways to companies other than those in the tourism and recreation sector help the environment and encourage the creation of greenways? 
[Interjection]
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two questions more or less related to this bill.
I would like to inform the member that I am quite aware of the responsibilities being thrust upon municipalities. As a city councillor for the lovely and extraordinary city of Gatineau, I was in a position to experience this first hand. Yesterday, Premier Charest's government responded to many of these issues by signing a new fiscal deal with municipalities. 
Getting back to the bill, the member's second question is about bridge divestiture and management. At issue are international bridges linking Canada and the United States, our trading partner. The bill will have a positive impact in that regard.
For example, we know the environmental cost of pollution caused by slowing or stopping the flow of traffic between Canada and the United States. As I stated earlier, this bill will give us the tools to improve the flow of goods between our two countries. 
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transportation concerns environmental issues and the concerns many residents along the border have with the movement of hazardous goods through tunnels and bridges. As the rate of rail movement has increased in Canada we have seen incidences where these environmental concerns have turned into environmental problems.
 Does the bill bring clarification to the direction that we will take with the development of new facilities and with the movement of hazardous goods within those facilities?
[Interjection]
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important question. I think the member is referring to circumstances where some bridges can be used for the purpose of allowing hazardous wastes to cross over to Canada or to the United States. In some circumstances the regulations that are in place are more or less respected. This legislation would enable us to put forward a comprehensive and coherent set of regulations that would basically cover the issues that the hon. member has raised.
In that regard, this legislation should, in my view, obtain a full and complete buy-in by everybody in this House.
The Speaker: Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on questions and comments? I am sorry, the hon. member for Palliser.
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. In the post-9/11 world, the security of these 24 bridges and tunnels and five rail tunnels, I am guessing, is a crucial part of what is driving the bill. Could the minister comment on that, and the importance of the security and the safety of these vital networks to this country?
The Speaker: Before the minister comments, I would remind hon. members that they must address the House in their own seats. This is why I was confused when the hon. member for Palliser stood up and I assumed he was a parliamentary secretary, but he was not in his own seat. Technically, he should not be allowed to address the House and I am trying to correct this problem. We are sitting as a House and not as a committee of the whole and I remind hon. members of that. The hon. Minister of Transport.
[Interjection]
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, you are right. 
In fact, the Speaker is always right.
 As a matter of fact, yes, since 9/11 we have been extremely vigilant as a government. This is another step that we must take in securing our borders and ensuring that not only are they secure but, as I mentioned before, that there is a seamless flow between both our countries. We do understand that the context has changed.
As our political party has mentioned over the last campaign, we intend to not only stand up for Canada, but ensure also that our border crossings are safe. We are committed to doing that. In that regard, hopefully, this piece of legislation will get quick approval from all our colleagues.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the minister defended vigorously the negotiation of the free trade agreement by the Mulroney government and noted that at the time, the Liberals under John Turner were opposed. That is true but that is ancient history. The Liberal Party has been strongly in favour of NAFTA and free trade for over a decade.
It is the Conservative Party that ought to be embarrassed. It is the Conservative Party under Brian Mulroney that negotiated free trade. The agreement reached yesterday is in fact a betrayal of free trade. It is not free trade when we have a maximum quota of 34%. It is managed trade.
One of the key achievements of the Mulroney free trade agreement was the dispute settlement mechanism. The government has abandoned the dispute settlement mechanism creating an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for future sectors as we go forward.
I have not heard any reaction from Mr. Mulroney, but I would imagine he would be distressed that the critical principles of his negotiations, that is to say the free trade principle and the dispute settlement mechanism, both have been abandoned by the government in the accord which was reached yesterday.
It is not surprising that the Liberal Party supports this bill since, given its main points, it is essentially the Liberal bill. 
Therefore, I am very pleased, and I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that the Conservative government is indeed proceeding with this project which we initiated.
We do think, as the minister said, that it is extremely important to have a framework that oversees everything to do with bridges and tunnels, including their building, maintenance and security. As I said earlier, Canada-U.S. trade is the economic lifeblood of our country and to a lesser extent their country with millions and millions of jobs at stake. In order for that trade to be efficient and go barrier free, one of the essential ingredients is free trade, which was kind of abandoned yesterday, but another one is an efficient transportation infrastructure.
Two-way trade between Canada and the U.S. is more than $532 billion annually. Canada is the largest export market for 37 out of the 50 states.
Another statistic that I found very surprising is the fact that Canadian exports to Home Depot are greater than Canadian exports to France. It would be hard to overstate the importance of trade between Canada and the United States. 
That is why it is extremely important that our transportation infrastructure be reliable and well maintained. The government must have the tools to ensure that the system is not only functioning on a day-to-day basis, but is able to respond effectively and efficiently to new initiatives that become required.
We need a framework in place so the building and maintenance of our bridges and tunnels is secure and regulated. We have 24 bridges and five international rail tunnels that link our two countries. Given the importance of all of this, it is perhaps surprising that even though the responsibility of the federal government in this area has been there since 1867, there has never before been any comprehensive clear-cut authority laid out that gives the government the authority to deal with requests about bridge and tunnel infrastructure whether for a new bridge or for a change in a bridge. Given that this is so fundamental to Canadian jobs and Canadian prosperity, it is high time that we have such a mechanism. 
In the past any bridges or tunnels that were built were done through special acts of Parliament with the U.S. neighbours enacting similar ad hoc legislation. Therefore, this legislation provides an overall framework which will obviate the need for such ad hoc case-by-case agreements.
We urge the Minister of Transport in the interest of transparency to ensure that any reports from bridge and tunnel operators regarding maintenance and repair, and safety and security are tabled in Parliament for all to see.
The bill that was on the table before the election would have expedited the approval of new facilities and ensured the efficient and competitive flow of goods and people. We hope and believe that the government's plan will effectively do the same thing. The government will not have opposition from the official opposition on this bill. How can we oppose our own bill?
I would like to end with a few comments on the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund which is also, I believe, the responsibility of the minister. He has many responsibilities and we believe that this is absolutely crucial for the future of our cities and communities. The Liberal government put approximately $4 billion into the fund to support large scale infrastructure projects. 
This fund has helped very much to improve the quality of life in many communities by partnering on major infrastructure projects. I will name a few: York Region Transit network improvements, Banff National Park Trans-Canada Highway improvements, New Brunswick Urban Bypass projects, and the Kicking Horse Canyon project.
In my region of York, Ontario, I sometimes say that traffic gridlock is second only to health care in the concerns of my constituents, The Liberal government put funding into Viva Transit, GO Transit. These are really essential to the livelihood and the quality of life of the residents of York region and my own constituents. Public transit is essential for the efficiency of the transport system and also for environmental reasons to which the government does not seem to attach great priority.
There is concern that the government has made no commitment to replenish this vital program. We are concerned that important projects that help vitalize our Canadian cities may go by the wayside, leaving communities underfunded and struggling to make their own way on inadequate budgets.
The health of our cities and communities is in jeopardy. This is a fundamental, core contribution of the previous government to essential infrastructure in all regions of the country. Naturally, we are very concerned about the future of this program. We urge the minister to apply all the influence he has to other members of the government to ensure that this program is continued and funded in a manner that is adequate to respond to the needs of Canadians across the country.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the member across the floor say he will support this legislation. He says he will support it because it was legislation presented by the Liberal government last time. That is true to a point, but it has been improved with a couple of key changes. I hope he will acknowledge that. 
He went on to say that this Conservative government should be ashamed of the softwood lumber deal. Let us look at a bit of the history of the softwood lumber issue.
First, it is an issue that could not be settled in the original free trade agreement. It could not be settled by his government when it completed the NAFTA agreements. As a result, it has been a serious trade irritant for some time.
His government negotiated quotas. In this agreement, there are no quotas under current market conditions. It is a good deal, a deal that the Prime Minister pledged to achieve and did achieve. 
Canada stuck to its position. Canada's key conditions were accepted. It is a long term agreement of seven years. The agreement gives Canadian producers stable, predictable access without quotas and without tariffs. That is very important. This agreement returns at least $4 billion U.S. to the Canadian industry.
The agreement recognizes provincial differences. We saw the Liberal Premier of Ontario vigorously support this agreement yesterday. That was very refreshing. He put aside partisan politics and supported the best deal that could be achieved. 
Is it a perfect deal ? No. The Prime Minister said that. But this has been a longstanding trade irritant .
That leads to the second point. This agreement is important beyond the softwood issue itself. It demonstrates what can be achieved when we put aside harmful rhetoric, such as that presented by his government over many years, and replace it with hard work. 
Because of the better working relationship that has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, between Canada and the United States, when it comes to difficult issues like this, we can negotiate in a very tough fashion. We have at least a working relationship. His government could not reach an agreement because of the harmful rhetoric and the negative working relationship with the United States. 
This is an important point that maybe has not been talked about enough. It is a new relationship. When it comes to tough issues, we can negotiate in a very tough and firm fashion, and achieve results, results that his government could not achieve.
Again, I appreciate that the member opposite did acknowledge that this legislation should be supported. It is an improved version of legislation that was presented by his government. I look forward to this passing in very short order.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, there were four little weasel words that came out just now, though not spoken very loudly, “under current market conditions”. Does anyone think that market conditions always stay the same? No. Markets go up and markets go down. To say that something is free under current market conditions is to say it is not free under different market conditions.
The member's point is incorrect when one looks beyond the current month or year because market conditions will change. When that market goes south, the U.S. interests will prevail. Why do we think the U.S. signed on? It was in large measure for that reason.
The other little problem was when he said $4 billion. I thought the amount was $5 billion. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, what happened to the missing $1 billion that is going to be in the hands of U.S. lumber producers? I seem to remember it was the election promise of the current Prime Minister to get back every penny of that $5 billion. Now it is $4 billion. Is the Prime Minister going to write a personal cheque for $1 billion? How is he going to make up the difference? This is another example of broken promises by the Prime Minister.
When the member says this is important beyond the softwood issue, I agree because that speaks to the point I made earlier. It is important beyond the softwood issue because it sets a dangerous precedent for other industries going forward. The precedent is that it is no longer free trade but managed trade. 
The precedent is that we no longer rely on the dispute settlement mechanism under NAFTA but we rely on ad hoc case by case negotiations. This kills the dispute settlement mechanism negotiated with such difficulty by a past Conservative government, which must be somewhat disappointed to see that its central achievement has now been destroyed by the current Conservative government.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that for as long as I have been an MP the NDP members from Windsor had been appealing to the former Liberal government to do something about the Ambassador Bridge and the billions of dollars of lost trade and opportunity that stems from the inadequacy of that vital crossing. I was shocked to learn as an MP that the Ambassador Bridge is actually privately owned. Neither the provincial government nor the federal government owns the Ambassador Bridge. Some individual owns it.
The Liberal government had this problem. It was supposed to be seized of this problem for all those years and yet to this day, there is a backup of semi-trailers waiting to take our exports to the United States. Those semi-trailers sit there with their engines idling, poisoning the good citizens of Windsor West. The lost opportunity is staggering and it is on the member's former government for failing to do anything for 13 years with that border crossing.
The member spent a lot of time in his speech talking about the Canada infrastructure fund. The Liberal administration of the Canada infrastructure fund was like some shady ring toss on a carnival midway. That is how it was treated. It was a setup. It was politicized and used as an instrument for throwing partisan freebies and goodies around the country. I do not lament the end of the administration of that particular infrastructure program one bit. 
I would ask my colleague to comment on the Ambassador Bridge issue, as well as his government's stance on solving the softwood lumber crisis. Its stance was on its knees. We have a saying in the labour movement that the great only appear great to us because we are on our knees. That was the Liberal approach. When the Liberals sent negotiators to Washington for all those years it was as sycophants or something. They did not deliver the bacon. It is hard to hear the member pontificate about the job the Liberals did on the softwood lumber file when nothing was delivered.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: My goodness, Mr. Speaker, on the first point, the answer is very simple. It is this bill which will give the government the tools to handle the Ambassador Bridge and other crossings.
Had the NDP not colluded with the Conservative Party to bring down the Liberal government when it did, the bill would have been legislation by now and we would have been able to act by now. Therefore, it is the NDP in colluding with the Conservatives that caused this delay.
In terms of negotiating by going on our knees to Washington, I think the hon. member has got the wrong party, the wrong Prime Minister. He may recall, for example, that when Jean Chrétien was prime minister, he said no to the war in Iraq. Was that on our knees? No. That was an independent principled statement by the Government of Canada going totally against the Bush administration. It is the present Conservative government which is on its knees caving in to the Bush administration demands. Therefore, we have no apologies whatsoever to make on that score.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois readily supports the principle of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, but we still have some reservations, which I will explain in the next few minutes. 
I would first like to make the point, for the benefit of the Quebec audience, that there is only one international bridge in Quebec, the one in Sutton. It is on the Vallée-Missisquoi road and crosses the Missisquoi River in Sutton. An old, metal bridge, it is approximately 50 metres long and was built around 1929. It spans a beautiful gorge. It is used by many trucks and appears in need of repair. It is owned by both Vermont, primarily, and the municipality of Sutton. It is inspected by Quebec's Department of Transport and in conjunction with Vermont as well. The municipality is responsible for repair costs, under a Quebec infrastructure fund. Vermont pays approximately 70% of repair costs. 
Now that I have clearly described our international bridge in Quebec, I will address the positive aspects of Bill C-3. 
There has been a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels. Bill C-3 aims to improve the security of these structures. According to the Department of Transport, local stakeholders are in favour of the provisions of this bill.
Let us now move on to the negative aspects. In the international brides and tunnels legislative framework, a very broad policing power is being given to the government such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure. The government has the power to legislate, but the financial responsibility rests on other shoulders. In time, this situation can lead to conflicts.
The current bill left out a number of important and highly useful measures that were in Bill C-44. I will come back to that.
For example, there was a requirement that airline advertising be more transparent. The airlines would have had to change their advertising methods. They would have been required to list the total price of the flight including related fees. This measure was much demanded by the consumer associations.
The provisions of Bill C-44 that are missing from Bill C-3 would have improved the conflict resolution process for sharing the rail lines between passenger transportation companies and freight companies. Bill C-44 included a section under which a railway company wishing to sell a railway line would first offer it to any interested urban transit authorities, giving municipal governments priority in order to avoid tearing up the tracks. 
The new VIA Rail Canada Act, proposed by Bill C-44, would have given it greater decision-making power, in the hope of improving rail transportation, reducing environmental impact and achieving energy savings. 
Section 32 of Bill C-44 would have provided the Canadian Transportation Agency with authority to address complaints relating to railway noise in order to require railway companies to take measures to prevent unreasonable noise, particularly around marshalling yards.
I will speak later about these measures which are not found in Bill C-3. First, I would like to give the background of this last bill, which was introduced at first reading on April 24, 2006. It seeks to bring forward part of former Bills C-44 and C-26.
There are 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels connecting Canada and the United States: 14 in Ontario, nine in New Brunswick and only one in Quebec, as I mentioned earlier. In addition there are five railway bridges and tunnels in Ontario. Only five of these crossings are owned by the federal government. According to the Department of Transport, the events of 9/11 brought to light the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures.
Responsibility for international bridges and tunnels lies with the federal government, which has sole legislative jurisdiction in this matter . However, the federal government does not have the clearly defined legislative and regulatory authority to administer these crossings. According to the Department of Transport, there is currently no process to approve the construction of new bridges or tunnels or alterations to existing structures. 
In the past, the construction of a bridge or tunnel was authorized by a special act of Parliament and by the adoption of identical legislation in the United States. Again according to the department, consultation of key players was carried out and the provisions of Bill C-44 received considerable support. The majority of players were eager to participate in the regulatory process.
 The provisions in this new bill are practically identical to those in Bill C-44. The enactment contains two new provisions: approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control, and clarification of the process for obtaining permits to build bridges over the St. Lawrence River.
Besides confirming the federal government’s jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels, the proposed legislation would enable the federal government to issue guidelines concerning approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges or tunnels; specify conditions regarding bridge maintenance and operation; approve changes in ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels; and finally, ensure that the crossings are safe and secure.
The expression “international bridge or tunnel” means “a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel”. As hon. members know, international bridges or tunnels cannot be build without government approval. Such approval may be given to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River.
Other provisions state that the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance, repair, operation, use, security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. The bill also provides that the Minister may make any appropriate directions, if he is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel or to the safety of persons. Government approval would also be necessary to change the ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels. Under this bill, it would also be possible to establish a crown corporation to administer a bridge or tunnel.
Unfortunately, very broad police powers are being granted to the government, such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a most authoritarian power of seizure. I am referring to clause 39.
A great deal of what Bill C-44 provided for is not covered by Bill C-3, particularly with respect to rail transportation. For instance, Bill C-44 proposed improvements to the shipper protection regime for rail service users and the elimination of the requirement for the Canada Transportation Agency to determine whether the commercial harm to the shipper would be substantial.
It would appear that the time allotted me has expired.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as she knows, it is time for statements by members. After question period, she will have 12 minutes to finish her remarks.

Statements by Members
Devils LakeMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for improving relations with our closest neighbour, and successfully concluding a deal on softwood lumber. It is good to see that our Prime Minister and this government can deal with our southern neighbours after the Liberals spent 13 years destroying our relations with the Americans.
This bodes well for all the other issues on which we have to work with the Americans.
 This spring Manitobans are once again faced with uncertainty about the protection of Lake Winnipeg due to the Devils Lake diversion. We are forced, once again, to deal with this issue despite claims made last year by the former Liberal government that it had signed a fictitious agreement to provide a permanent filter to protect Manitoba's waters.
This week I hosted a meeting with three of our ministers, municipalities surrounding Lake Winnipeg and the commercial fishing industry. We have to start focusing on the science and develop an ongoing respectful dialogue between all the jurisdictions affected.
Everyone is well aware that this issue is one of many that is of great importance to both our nations. I am confident that this Conservative government and our Prime Minister will be able to keep working constructively with the U.S., as demonstrated yesterday.
DarfurMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we speak, thousands of people are being systematically slaughtered, raped and pillaged by Sudanese government sponsored militias in Darfur.
Sixty five years ago the world remained silent to the death of millions and vowed never again. This week our country marked the Holocaust Remembrance Day and yet today genocidal horrors are once again going unchallenged.
Today we must speak up against the evils occurring in Darfur. On Sunday, at Toronto city hall, thousands of people will gather to shout for Darfur. I stand with them in calling for Canada to be a leader in ending the horrendous violence in Darfur.
I call upon all members of the House, and all people of good conscience, to take action on this issue.
Softwood LumberMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the executive vice-president and general manager of the Free Trade Lumber Council, Carl Grenier, has said that yesterday was a very sad day for the softwood lumber industry in Quebec and Canada.
The federal government's stubborn refusal to provide solid support for the softwood lumber industry led to the situation we are in today.
Softwood lumber companies are not to blame for caving in to pressure from the Americans. The current and previous federal governments are to blame for refusing to put in place a serious aid program for the industry, including loan guarantees, as the Bloc Québécois, companies and workers demanded. Such measures would have put us in a stronger negotiating position and resulted in a better agreement.
In addition, by accepting an agreement that goes against the principle of full free trade, the Prime Minister weakened NAFTA and its dispute settlement mechanisms.
National Day of MourningMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1991 NDP MP Rod Murphy sponsored an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace. It proclaimed April 28 as National Day of Mourning.
 According to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Canada's rate of workplace fatalities is now among the worst in the industrialized world. Employers and governments are failing on this front and working people are paying for this failure with their health and their lives. 
In 1984, when the National Day of Mourning was initiated, 744 workers were listed as having died from workplace injuries. Twenty years later, in 2004, that number stood at 928. In 2003 the Westray bill finally gave courts the right to hold corporations criminally responsible for unsafe working conditions.
Today, the NDP recommits our efforts to create safe workplaces where employers take full responsibility for the health and safety of their workers and where the government enforces the rules that are in place.
Keystone CentreMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the grand opening of the Agricultural Centre of Excellence, the newest addition to our Keystone Centre complex in Brandon and western Manitoba. The Keystone now boasts a world class facility, including 540,000 square feet under one roof. The latest addition to the Agricultural Centre of Excellence and related upgrades makes the Keystone Centre a prominent economic generator for the western Manitoba region.
Home to the Brandon Wheat Kings, several other hockey and curling leagues, groups and organizations, the upgraded facility can accommodate up to 800 animals as well as being host to many special regional and national agricultural events. The Keystone Centre will host several significant events over the next year.
 This June marks the 125th anniversary of the Annual Manitoba Summer Fair. As well, the 30th Annual Manitoba Ag Days and the 100th Annual Royal Manitoba Winter Fair are in the planning stages for 2007.
I invite all Canadians to put Brandon and western Manitoba on their holiday schedule this year.
Steve StavroMr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday my friend Steve Stavro passed away in Toronto. Steve was born in Macedonia, as was I, and we knew each other for a number of years. 
Steve's accomplishments in his adopted home of Canada were many. He began the Knobb Hill Farms grocery chain, but his love for sports was enduring. He owned the Toronto Maple Leafs and was active in Toronto's soccer scene. Steve was made a member of the Order of Canada in 1992 and in 2005 was inducted in the builder category into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame. 
His love for sports was only unmatched by his love for his wife Sally, four daughters, nine grandchildren and two great grandchildren.
Like Alexander the Great, Steve was great in his community charity work, to his family, friends and business associates. I know I speak on behalf of many Canadians when I say that Steve will be greatly missed. He was truly a great Canadian.
Canadian Cattlemen's AssociationMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a respected rancher and constituent of my riding of Macleod, Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton of Lundbreck, Alberta on his recent election to President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
Mr. Lynch-Staunton comes from a family of distinguished individuals. His father was lieutenant governor of Alberta and his cousin John recently retired from the Senate of Canada.
He is undertaking a great role in ensuring Canadian cattle producers have the best environment possible to make a profit from the market. Under Mr. Lynch-Staunton's leadership, the Canadian cattle industry continues to work with this government to ensure that trade with the United States and other countries will soon be returned to normal volumes, traditional before the first case of BSE in May 2003.
I, as the member of Parliament for Macleod, look forward to working with Mr. Lynch-Staunton and the 90,000 beef producers across Canada to return to a normal market situation.
TennisFrance Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, after a 20-year absence, Frédéric Niemeyer returned to the Rock Forest recreation centre, where he made his professional debut, from March 11 to 19, when he competed in front of a home crowd in the National Bank Futures tournament in Sherbrooke. Mr. Niemeyer, who is originally from Deauville, is ranked 179th in the world.
Created to showcase the most talented players from Quebec and from Canada, the National Bank Futures tournaments allow our athletes to accumulate ATP points and win $10,000 in prize money.
The Bloc Québécois would like to thank and congratulate the recreation centre and the Sherbrooke tennis club and its president, François Lefevbre, for organizing the tournament. They gave us a chance to see a Quebec tennis great in action, along with two upcoming young players from the Eastern Townships: Sébastien Jacques of Magog and Alexandre Desmarais of Deauville.
We also congratulate the tournament winner, seventh-seeded Robin Haase from the Netherlands.
TerrorismMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned with the intensification of violence in Sri Lanka, triggered by Tuesday's suicide bombing.
 We condemn all terrorist acts as demonstrated most recently by our listing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam pursuant to the Criminal Code.
Norway, which has been facilitating the peace process between the parties, is currently working on the ground to bring them back to the negotiating table.
The government of Sri Lanka has stated its continued support for the ceasefire agreement and willingness to return to negotiations. We urge both parties to cooperate with the Norwegian facilitators and agree upon a date for the resumption of talks.
National Day of MourningMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the National Day of Mourning. It is a day the constituents of the Churchill riding know only too well. This day we remember Canadians who have lost their lives in a work related death and those who have lost their health due to the workplace. Many of us in the House and across the country have been affected in one way or another by a workplace accident or tragedy.
In my riding of Churchill injuries happen not only in the high risk industries of logging or mining, fishing or construction, but they happen in all occupations. Injuries in a rural riding can be most challenging, often requiring travel to access health care and further travel for appropriate treatments. This difficulty is compounded by the emotional and often financial burden for the families.
Young people are quick to jump at opportunities to work, but these new workers have higher rates of injuries than other people, often within the first couple of days or weeks of starting their new job.
This National Day of Mourning gives us, as Canadians, a chance to remember the value of both work and safety and each other.
I ask all members to work together as parliamentarians toward the goal of safer workplaces for all people. 
Softwood LumberMr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for the forestry industry in Canada. After us suffering through 13 years of Liberal inaction, it took only 80 days for our Prime Minister and this government to find a resolution to the softwood dispute.
The Liberal record is abysmal on this file. The previous prime minister was willing to sell out the return of illegal duties. He clearly stated that the return of only $3.5 billion was just okay with him. The former member for Papineau, as foreign affairs minister, was willing to get rid of the exemption for Atlantic producers. It is obvious that the previous Liberal government did not have the interests of the forestry industry in mind and was willing to sell out the industry just to get a deal.
The deal will improve the balance sheets of our Canadian forestry companies. The residents and the forestry industry of Saskatchewan are extremely pleased with this deal. This is a good deal for our country, for our residents and for the forestry industry in my riding. Under this Prime Minister, what Canada wanted is what Canada got.
Foreign AffairsMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the rescue of James Loney and two other hostages in Iraq ended an anxious four month ordeal for my community of Sault Ste. Marie.
James' parents, Patrick and Claudette, rejoiced with their other children. For 118 days, neighbours, church and other friends offered steadfast prayer and support. Like James, the community is grateful to God, to the soldiers, government and diplomats who rescued him, and to supporters who were his voice during captivity.
Typical of James, his first words of gratitude included remembering others in detention, in prison or on security certificates without due process. His deepest wish is that every forsaken human being has a hand of solidarity reaching out to them.
The Christian Peacekeeper witness to non-violent peacemaking challenges the rhetoric of violence. The world is bigger than only “us and them”.
SudanHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Sudan has become even more grave. The murder and rape of innocent civilians by Khartoum's sponsored Janjaweed continues unabated. Now we see that food is running out for hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled the carnage. This week, Sudan's President al-Bashir and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini engaged in talks to provide Sudan with nuclear capabilities.
 The crisis demands action now.
Our government must urgently ask the UN Security Council to authorize the assembly and deployment of a peacemaking force, with a chapter 7 mandate, to Darfur. We must also lead an international effort to ensure that the refugees have the food they need.
This week the Prime Minister said that Canada will not sit idly by while a genocide is occurring. Now he must back up those words with action and vigorously pursue this plan that will save the lives of the innocent people in Darfur and stop a genocide. Time is not on Darfur's side.
National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness WeekMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, April 23 to 30 is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. The green ribbon symbolizes life and promotes organ donation. 
On January 16, in Quebec, the Chambre des Notaires established a list of people who have agreed to donate organs and tissue. This list is available on line to authorized individuals 24 hours a day.
Thanks to the list, people's last wishes concerning organ donation will be easier to respect, and patients waiting for transplants will have quicker access to the organ or tissue that could change their life. This is a very smart initiative that demonstrates, yet again, Quebec's innovative spirit.
I invite all of my colleagues to wear the green ribbon and to convince as many of their friends and acquaintances as possible about the importance of organ donation.
National DefenceMr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision barring the media from the repatriation of troops killed in action in Afghanistan was taken on behalf of the families of the servicemen, yet they were not consulted. The government claims that refusing to lower the Peace Tower flag is a more respectful act of remembrance for troops killed in action.
 To my mind, nothing can be more dangerous for Canada that the war in Afghanistan should come to be regarded as a departmental affair under the sole care and arbitration of the overburdened Minister of National Defence and his boss. An experienced government knows that all armed forces need to preserve the connection between their members and the civilian population.
I note that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence had any reservations about lowering the Peace Tower flag as a sign of respect for the RCMP officers killed in the line of duty. Why are our soldiers any different? Because they died overseas?
LobbyistsMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra cannot seem to get the story straight on lobbying, and no wonder. Liberals have been displaying incredible ethics amnesia in this Parliament.
It was the former Liberal prime minister's so-called conflict of interest code that purposely left the barn door open to Liberal lobbying horseplay, with defeated Liberal cabinet ministers rushing to the lobbying trough and major corporate lobbyists jumping on the Liberal transition gravy train without jumping off the Liberal lobbying bandwagon, at least not until the former Liberal prime minister's personally hand-picked ethics lapdog finally caved to pressure and told them to deregister, knowing full well the Liberal prime minister did not have a cooling off period for them after transition. Michael Robinson, Dennis Dawson, John Duffy, Arthur Kroeger, Mark Resnick, André Albinati, Francis Fox, Cyrus Reporter: sadly, the Liberal list of lobbying conflicts goes on and on.
If the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra is serious about strong accountability on lobbying, he should tell his Liberal colleagues to stop opposing the Conservative federal accountability act, get with the program and get on with changing the old Liberal rules. Canadians turned the page on Liberal cronyism by choosing a Conservative government. Can the Liberals now do the same?

Oral Questions
Softwood LumberHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the softwood lumber dispute up until now, Canada has always demanded the Americans show respect for the trade agreements they signed. We also insisted that duties collected illegally from Canadian firms not be scooped into the pockets of American lumber barons.
With yesterday's deal, Canada lost both ways. It was a political deal, a deal at any price, and the Americans got a signing bonus of up to $1.5 billion swiped directly from Canadians.
Why did the government give in, on bended knee, to Uncle Sam?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. Over six years, the Liberals failed. Over six years, they did not act. In 80 days, this Prime Minister acted in the best interests of Canada and will deliver back to the pockets of Canadians $4 billion U.S., plus interest, that the Liberals sent to the United States and did not get back for Canadians.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, industry people say that this softwood deal could have been had yesterday or two weeks ago or six months ago. All it took was a Canadian government that was prepared to roll over.
The Americans violated NAFTA, they capped the market access, they swiped $1.5 billion, and on the very day that this deal was done, the U.S. filed another extraordinary challenge against Canadian softwood lumber.
Why was this deal unacceptable to the Minister of International Trade last November but, in even less favourable form, it is okay today?
Jason Kenney: The hon. member is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, that the current Minister of International Trade helped us stop a bad Liberal deal last November that would only have delivered $3.5 billion. He stood up for Canada and said no to the deal then.
 He worked hard over the past weeks, along with the Prime Minister and our embassy in Washington, to secure this, with the industry's support, with the support of the premiers of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, all Liberal premiers, because they were sick and tired of six years of inaction. They realized that this deal will bring $4 billion back to Canada, and it will bring peace and open trade for the Canadian forest industry.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it will be very interesting to examine the exact impacts on the Canfor firm on both sides of the border.
This is not free trade. It is not fair trade. This is limited trade, capped, restricted and controlled to suit the United States, and the deal will last only as long as it works in the Americans' favour. On top of that, the U.S. industry gets $1.5 billion, taken illegally from us, to fight Canadians with our own money.
Last September the Prime Minister said that was wrong and he would fight it. Again during the election campaign he said it was wrong and he would fight it. Why has the Prime Minister flip-flopped again to settle for less?
Jason Kenney: That is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the United States industry will keep only 10% of the duties that we agree it illegally collected. Eighty per cent of the duties will be repatriated to Canadian industry. The other 10% will be allocated on forestry projects, including aid to Katrina reconstruction and the pine beetle problem in British Columbia. That will be a direct benefit to our industry.
That member and his government were prepared to accept a bad deal of only $3.5 billion. The Liberals dawdled on this file for six years. We have acted and we have brought home $4 billion to protect the Canadian forestry industry.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Carl Grenier, from the Free Trade Lumber Council, is not impressed with the agreement signed yesterday by Canada and the United States regarding softwood lumber. Mr. Grenier cannot accept that the Canadian government left in excess of $1 billion in the hands of our American competitors.
How can the Prime Minister claim that yesterday was a great day for Canada and Quebec, when this agreement represents a complete sellout by Canada and more than a billion dollars belonging to our lumber industry has been given away to the U.S.?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government is the one that sold out. Over six years, Liberal attempts to reach an agreement consistently failed. They were not successful in winning their battle against the Americans.
Yesterday, Guy Chevrette, the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, commented that “it was worthwhile to put an end to this endless dispute. We have been waiting for five years; we are flat out”.
 Quebec's Liberal government and its premier supported this agreement, because it serves the higher interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, do the Conservatives realize they have signed a bargain-basement deal with the Americans, so much so that they feel the need to gag Canadian producers? Mr. Grenier, whose organization represents companies representing more than 40% of Canadian softwood lumber exports, said, “I have never seen such a rotten deal. It is a complete sellout by Canada”.
Have we just witnessed the demise of NAFTA?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I do not understand what the hon. member means. In Quebec, where he is from, the vast majority of lumber producers support the agreement, as does Quebec's Liberal government. 
In signing this agreement, the Prime Minister ensured that boundary sawmills, among others, are protected by an exemption. This is a good deal for Quebec, Quebec's lumber industry and all Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the American strategy throughout the softwood lumber dispute was very clear: it was to drag out the legal proceedings as long as possible in order to wear down the Canadian industry. Only loan guarantees would have helped the industry keep up the fight. According to Carl Grenier of the Free Trade Lumber Council, the Canadian government put pressure on the industries by telling them they would not get any help if they did not accept the agreement.
Is this attitude shown by the government not equivalent to allowing the Americans to go back on their word and disregard the NAFTA rulings?
Jason Kenney: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Canada's ambassador to Washington, Mr. Wilson, said yesterday that Canada was still prepared to use loan guarantees to protect our industry if the U.S. did not accept the agreement.
Our government was still prepared to support our industry if there was no agreement. However, we reached an historic agreement yesterday to protect the interests of the forestry industry in Quebec. That is why the Quebec Forest Industry Council and the Government of Quebec, among others, supported this agreement.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I agree, it is a historic agreement: we are letting the Americans keep $1 billion that they extorted. I do not think that people are very happy that the Americans are keeping $1 billion of our money. What is more, softwood lumber is being dropped from NAFTA.
Guy Chevrette from the Quebec Forest Industry Council said, “The industry's financial difficulties did not put us in a long-term time position of strength.” That is because the previous government did not use loan guarantees and this government also refused to do so. We are in fact leaving the Americans with $1 billion to prepare for the next battle. That is the reality.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. The Americans will pay back the Canadian industry 80% of the duties it took illegally. They are keeping only 10% to cover their legal fees.
This government has always defended the interests of our forestry industry. That is why after 80 days, we took action to get an agreement that is good for Quebec. This agreement received support from the Government of Quebec and the majority of lumber producers in Quebec. 
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the agreement reached yesterday has left a bad taste, even for those who had to approve it. Henceforth, softwood lumber is no longer covered by NAFTA.
Will the Minister of International Trade admit that he is sending the wrong message-—a message that encourages challenges to NAFTA and attacks on Quebec and Canadian companies because in the end it is worth it?
Jason Kenney: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the message is clear: our Prime Minister will defend the interests of the Quebec and Canadian industry and fight against illegal practices in international trade. That was accomplished by yesterday's historic agreement. It will ensure stability in the industry for seven years. Furthermore, it will not set quotas based on current prices. Consequently, as a result of this agreement, $4 billion US, plus interest, will be repaid to the Canadian softwood lumber industry.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that it will give the Americans $1 billion to prepare for the next attack. It is a very dangerous precedent. There was a trade conflict, the companies battled it out, and they won. Then with the American refusal to submit to tribunals' decisions, the rules were changed. It is evident that companies will no longer want to defend themselves if they are the victims of another protectionist attack in the future, especially with the type of action taken by the government.
Yesterday, it was softwood lumber. Can the minister tell us which other sector he plans to abandon tomorrow?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. In principle, this agreement will protect the Canadian forestry industry. This was made possible by the leadership of the current Prime Minister, who held President Bush to an agreement that would respect the rights and interests of the Canadian industry. This is why Canada secured the repayment of 80% of the tariffs collected by the Americans. This is why the Government of Quebec and the Quebec forestry industry support this agreement which is good for the workers and for Quebec and Canadian companies.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, accepting 80¢ on the dollar is a sellout, accepting new export taxes is a sellout and accepting quotas on our softwood lumber is a sellout. 
What is to stop other U.S. businesses from attacking other Canadian industries now that the government has rewarded George Bush and the U.S. lumber lobby with a billion dollar payout for ignoring NAFTA? What is protecting other businesses? What does the government have to say about that?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the questioners today, unlike the premiers and the forestry industry leaders, have not actually read the agreement. If they were to do so, they would see that the Americans are not keeping $1 billion: 10% will go to jointly agreed upon forestry projects that will help our industry, including through the pinewood beetle crisis in British Columbia; 80% will be returned to Canada; and only 10% will stay in the United States. That is 10% more than anyone would like but it is 90% less than the Americans would have kept had the Liberals still been in power.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, any way they try to cut it, it is still a sellout. It is still $1 billion that should be coming back to Canadians, the workers who have been hurt by this deal over the years. Even the Conservative Party platform talks about using the repayment of illegally collected tariffs to help displaced forestry workers and their communities but this deal was silent on that question.
Will the minister commit today to using these illegal tariffs to help workers, or are the Conservatives just like the Liberals, which is to say one thing before an election and then do something completely different afterward?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the premier and the government of her own province, British Columbia, the major forestry province in this country, support this accord because it is good for the province of British Columbia.
Let me quote Gordon Campbell, the Liberal Premier of B.C., who said, “This is a good deal for British Columbia”. Another friend of the former government said, “I want to thank the Prime Minister. He has driven this hard. What I really appreciate is that he made some changes to this deal that made it fair for Ontario”. That was said by Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Mr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the previous election, the Minister of International Trade said that he would be, “the Prime Minister's worst nightmare”. 
Now, with the government's softwood sellout of the century, will the minister admit to this House that he has now become British Columbia's worst nightmare by forcing it to accept a deal that he previously rejected?
Jason Kenney: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite raised the deal that was rejected by the current Minister of International Trade because when that minister sat in the Liberal cabinet he saw the Liberals come forward with a deal that would have sold Canada down the river and would have only collected $3.5 billion in duties. 
He realized, when he saw the new Prime Minister, that he was a leader who would stand up for Canada and joined his cabinet. In fact, it is the Minister of International Trade who delivered the third party trigger that was an absolute sine qua non of an agreement on the part of British Columbia. The minister defended British Columbia and got a great deal for British Columbians.
Blair Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this deal is a disaster. The Conservatives have left $1.5 billion on the table, $600 million of which belongs to British Columbia. It gets worse than that. The $600 million will now be used against us.
When will the minister admit that he is bankrolling the U.S. industry to fight against Canadians, to fight against Canadian jobs and to fight against the Canadian economy?
Jason Kenney: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite does not have a clue and does not understand the issue. 
The current Minister of International Trade knows more about softwood lumber and this industry than the entire Liberal caucus combined. That is why he rejected the deal that would have sold Canada down the river that was on the Liberal cabinet table last November and that is why he specifically managed to persuade the United States to include in this agreement a provision that would ensure that the Canadian industry is not penalized if third countries begin to increase their market share in the United States. That is why British Columbians--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley West.
Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his representative can try to justify this sellout deal all day but the fact remains that industry leaders and people in Ontario who made their livings in the softwood lumber industry know that our province has been sold down the river and jobs will be lost.
Why did the Prime Minister back down from his earlier stance of demanding a return of 100% of the illegally collected duties on Canadian softwood lumber from the United States? Why did he leave $1.5 billion in the hands of American lawbreakers?
Jason Kenney: He did not, Mr. Speaker. We reject the premise of the question.
The member claims to speak for Ontario on this but I thought the Government of Ontario did. The Liberal forestry minister, David Ramsey, said that Ontario got a critical element or more reasonable share of softwood exports. His own premier, Dalton McGuinty, thanked the Prime Minister and said, “He has driven it hard and what I really appreciate is that he made some changes to this deal that made it fair for Ontario”.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister and his representative do not realize this but, like all ministers, they are supposed to negotiate on behalf of all Canadians, and not on behalf of the American softwood lumber industry.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister the following: now that we have seen the catastrophic results of the negotiations in which the Minister of International Trade took part, is the Prime Minister going to ask him to sign on as a lobbyist for the American lumber producers, since the minister already seems to be working for them?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what was catastrophic was the Liberals' complete inability to act or to defend the interests of the Canadian industry when they were in power. Their total failure allowed the Americans to make off with $5 billion Canadian. Thanks to the Prime Minister's leadership, $4 billion of that will be reimbursed and put back into the pockets of Canadians. The Liberals never obtained as much.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Prime Minister's claims, yesterday's framework agreement with the Americans on softwood lumber is not all good.
Is the government concerned that by signing the agreement yesterday, it is tacitly agreeing with unsubstantiated American claims that Canada is supporting its softwood lumber industry?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that this government has always supported loan guarantees for the forest industry if an agreement could not be reached with the United States. That said, all stakeholders, including the industry and the provinces, have always preferred to reach an agreement. And we reached one yesterday. It is good for Canadian interests because the Americans will give back $4 billion. This will really help Canada's forest industry.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the chairman of the American coalition that started this dispute invited Canada to take the opportunity presented by this agreement to change its softwood lumber trading practices, thus refusing to back down from its claims that Canada still subsidizes its industry.
How can the government call this agreement a victory when, in fact, it looks more like a truce than a long-term solution?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, quite simply because it really is a long-term agreement. I do not have the agreement here in French, but it states quite clearly that:
The agreement will be for a term of seven years and may be renewed for two years. 
It is clear that this is a long-term agreement. Under this agreement, the U.S. has made a legal commitment not to cause any more problems for our industry. This is a good long-term agreement for the industry. It will really stabilize the situation.
FinanceMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last February, I wrote to the finance minister to find out his position on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's recent recommendation to impose a surtax on the growing number of cheap imported bicycles. The main manufacturers affected are located in Quebec, namely, Raleigh Canada Ltd. in Waterloo, in my riding, and Groupe Procycle Inc. in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, in the riding of the current industry minister.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to enforce the tribunal's decision and support the Quebec and Canadian bicycle industry?
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the minister is well aware of this issue and I urge him to wait for the budget to see how it is dealt with.
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, is the government going to subject the bicycle industry to the same fate as the softwood lumber industry, and by that I mean will it do nothing until the industry is forced to throw in the towel at the last minute? What will it take for him to do something?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member will find that all will become clear next week. I urge him to be patient and wait for the budget.
HealthTina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, at this moment the Garden Hill First Nation in my riding of Churchill is experiencing a tuberculosis epidemic. Since March the first two active cases of TB have spread to 20 people and hundreds upon hundreds of people, myself included, have been in contact. Despite pleas from the community leaders, the minister responsible has done nothing to prevent this disease from spreading further. This rate is 125 times greater than what the Minister of Health declared as a target for first nations on National TB Day.
 I ask the minister, how many more people need to be infected before he will commit to helping the Garden Hill First Nation?
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is actually incorrect. The Government of Canada, Health Canada and Manitoba Health Services are working on managing the outbreak along with provincial regional health authorities. 
In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with the first nation chief about four weeks ago, immediately after the outbreak occurred. Clearly, the government is taking action and we look forward to working with the community and all other stakeholders to ensure that appropriate action is taken.
Tina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary for health is not aware that the chief was in Ottawa this week and had tried to meet with officials and representatives from government. They have not been able to access those responsible. This community has not been able to implement a crisis response. Screening of all individuals is necessary to contain the outbreak.
 In the midst of a public health crisis, why does the government not provide the first nation with the same level of service that any other Canadian would receive?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member is not aware of the meeting that the chief had with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development yesterday, not to mention the meetings that they had previously.
Having said that, it is clear that aboriginal communities all across Canada are having challenges and that is due to 13 years of Liberal neglect of these first nations. We look forward to treating all Canadians equally and ensuring access to first class health care.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, imposing legislation upon aboriginal governments without prior consultation does not work, not to mention that it is an insult. Aboriginal organizations, the federal Auditor General, and the previous government had established a round table joint policy initiative to build capacity toward the establishment of a first nation's auditor general. 
Why is the government imposing its colonial wards of state attitude upon the first nations and not respecting this agreed to initiative?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member opposite that before the decision was taken to include first nations in our federal accountability act, I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to Chief Fontaine. He asked for a meeting and one was granted within 24 hours.
Gary Merasty: Mr. Speaker, instead of a round table, we get more of a bully pulpit. Each first nation government already files a minimum of 168 financial reports every year to the federal government, all of which the Auditor General gets access to. 
The parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development stated that 96% of first nations are fully compliant with all the regulations and rules. When will the government get off the pulpit, get back to the table, and begin consulting with first nations people?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the government did not want to establish a two tier process for the Auditor General. We believe that the Auditor General has been a real hero to the Canadian taxpayer and all Canadians. We want to give her the discretionary power to follow the money. I think all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians, will welcome this initiative.
Softwood LumberMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government signed a historic deal with the U.S. that ended several years of softwood dispute that plagued our industry. While the previous Liberal Prime Minister and the previous government were on record as being willing to settle for just $3.5 billion of the $5 billion in illegal penalties, it appears that the government did far better than that.
Could the Minister of Industry please tell the House the details of the return of the illegal penalties that were collected by the U.S.?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague notes that the previous Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, was prepared to settle for far less. In fact, I have a quote from the member for LaSalle--Émard, from November 17 of last year. He said, “The Americans owe Canadian companies $3.5 billion”.
It is a good thing he is not Prime Minister today because otherwise Canadians would have been shortchanged. Based on the deal arrived at by this Prime Minister yesterday, $4 billion will come back to the pockets of Canadians. To be clear, I am not sure if I get an A in my math, but that is $500 million more than that party was prepared to settle for.
Natural ResourcesDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about an important issue in my constituency in the north.
Today the Mackenzie gas pipeline is in front of two federal assessment panels. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with leaders from the Northwest Territories last week and indicated that his government was willing to support this project without the unanimous approval of northern aboriginal leaders and the results of the two assessment panels.
How can the minister take such a stand before the assessments have been completed and aboriginal leaders have had their input?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are very interested in providing economic development to the north. Clearly, we are interested in receiving unanimity, if possible, but we are not going to let that be a barrier to providing economic value to the northerners that need it the most.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, there is so much the minister can do for our communities, for the working families, and for aboriginal people. We need to work with all people to prepare the ground for such an important project.
The minister needs to take immediate action to deal with the Deh Cho land claims, financing the protected areas strategy, supporting land use plans, negotiating resource revenue sharing, and establishing a cumulative environmental impact assessment process.
Will the minister commit to work with the people of the north on these issues immediately?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has committed to the people of the north including the Deh Cho. In fact, his first trip was throughout the north. He met with these groups and he has ensured all parties that he is going to be working with all stakeholders to provide the best solution to this situation.
Child CareHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' supposed child care plan will neither create new child care spaces nor set up early learning programs on first nations reserves. Canada's aboriginal population is growing rapidly and urgently needs new child care spaces on reserves. Why are the minister and his government neglecting aboriginal Canadians?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is interested in helping all children all across Canada. That is the great thing about our choice in child care policy. It is going to benefit all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians, and we are very proud of that fact.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that is a vague and incorrect answer. The Liberal government had set aside $100 million to improve early learning programs and child care on reserves.
Since the Conservative government has no plan, will it honour the Liberal commitment and give aboriginal Canadians the services they need?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, our government is clear. We are very interested in assisting aboriginal people in terms of education, housing, and of course children and families. We will be moving forward. We will see on Tuesday a budget with regard to our plans. Our choice in child care plans is something that will benefit all Canadians.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the House know that the Kelowna accord is indeed an opportunity to make a difference. Canada's first nations would see improvements in health care, education, housing, and in economic opportunities. The funding for the Kelowna accord was booked in the same budgetary allocation that allowed the government to give $755 million to farmers, and that was good.
 Given the budget that is being presented on Tuesday, will the minister confirm that $5.1 billion committed to the Kelowna accord will be delivered as promised?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, our government's agenda is based upon accountability and taking responsibility. It will also be that way with aboriginal policy. We are going to be working with aboriginal Canadians in the months ahead. I look forward to Tuesday when we outline some of our plans for the future.
Anita Neville: Mr. Speaker, Kasechewan and water, Caledonia and land claims, Garden Hill and health care, all of these incidents of aboriginals being worse off than their fellow Canadians will be alleviated if the Kelowna accord is implemented in full. Canadians are demanding from coast to coast to coast that the prosperity gap be eliminated. 
I challenge the minister. Will he make the Kelowna accord the government's sixth priority?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, our government is very interested in pursuing all of the issues that were left behind by the previous government.
We are going to take responsibility for the responsibilities that are laid at our feet. On Tuesday we will outline some of our budgetary measures and I am very hopeful that aboriginal people will see a good future in Canada.
AgricultureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday cash crop farmers from Mauricie dumped seven tonnes of corn at the regional office of Farm Credit Canada in Trois-Rivières. These farmers are at the end of their rope since their incomes have dropped by 80% over the past two years. Seeding time is about to begin and there is an urgent need to take action. For more than three years, the farmers of Quebec have been asking the Canadian government to help them contain the crisis.
My question is simple: does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to respond favourably to their request?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his question.
Our government already paid $755 million at the very beginning of its mandate to help Canadian and Quebec farmers. Of this amount, $39 million went to La Financière agricole du Québec.
André Bellavance: While grain producers in the U.S. get massive subsidies and report record profits, our farmers are waiting for the support promised by the Conservatives.
What is the minister waiting for to give financial help immediately for the spring seeding and to begin to reform the agriculture strategy framework?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our government is very aware of the problems in agriculture in Canada and in the near future we intend to remodel the new agriculture income protection system.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said he was proud of Gwyn Morgan and his rogue views of Jamaican and Vietnamese immigrants. Mr. Morgan also believes that refugees abuse our society and refugees are “more likely to have violent tendencies”.
I ask the minister to guarantee that refugees fleeing persecution will not face prejudice from Mr. Morgan's appointments to the IRB and that Mr. Morgan will have no impact on IRB appointments. Will he at least do that much?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it really is unfortunate that the member opposite is quoting out of context remarks made years ago by Mr. Morgan, which he clarified shortly thereafter in a letter. Mr. Morgan has been voted by the entire Canadian business industry as the most respected Canadian business leader. 
Of course, this government will continue to make Canada a safe haven for people who flee persecution abroad. We intend to do exactly that in the capable hands of our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
AsbestosMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the mining and production of serpentine asbestos, known as chrysotile, play an important part in Quebec's economy.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell this House about the safe use and production of this resource?
Mr. Christian Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government cares about worker and public health, and it realizes that certain asbestos fibres, such as those of the amphibole variety, present health hazards. However, the only asbestos fibre produced in Canada is chrysotile, which is safe under controlled conditions.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the chrysotile industry to Quebec, and supports the safe use of chrysotile.
Public Service of CanadaPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the government has pledged to find $22 billion in savings in its upcoming budget. This has led many to speculate on where the cuts will occur.
Public servants in Ottawa have been left in the dark about whether they will be asked to shoulder the burden of these cuts like they were with the previous government.
Will the President of the Treasury Board give his assurances to our public servants that they will not lose their jobs to pay for Conservative promises?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the member opposite that the government will ensure that a respectful, productive relationship for public servants on both sides of the river is maintained. Morale has been quite low. We look forward to a productive relationship. I would encourage the member opposite to not believe any mischievous statements that might lead to some fearmongering.
The government wants a strong, vibrant public service to help deliver good programs to the people of Canada.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the public service creates jobs in Ottawa the same way that the car industry creates jobs in Oshawa and the steel industry creates jobs in Hamilton. With all due respect, no MP from those centres would stand idly by while their communities were at risk of political job losses. 
The people of Ottawa demand to know the government's plans with respect to the public service. Will the President of the Treasury Board give us those clear assurances?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to my friend from Ottawa that this government values the role of the public service. 
Rumours and mischief and fearmongering have gone on with respect to the public service. Our budget will be tabled in this place on May 2 and I think public servants will welcome it, as will all Canadians. It will be a real change for Canada. It will allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars, and that will be welcomed by all Canadians, especially our public servants.
Status of WomenHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, conservative-minded groups are actively campaigning to have the Status of Women Canada program disbanded. Can the minister reassure the House that the government will take no such action and that no cuts will be made to the budget of this very important department?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me the opportunity to indicate that this government recognizes the importance of women. They represent 50% of all Canadians. We will support them in their endeavours. The resources they require so they can fully participate in Canadian life will be assured.
Livestock IndustryMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada has consistently defended the interests of the Canadian beef industry. We have now heard the U.S. protectionist group R-CALF has decided not to appeal a U.S. court decision that rejected an R-CALF motion to reclose the U.S. border to Canadian cattle. 
Can the agriculture minister update this House on the ramifications of this recent R-CALF decision on the Canadian cattle industry?
Jacques Gourde: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party went to bat for Canadian beef producers when the dispute with R-CALF first started. We are very pleased that R-CALF decided not to follow through with the appeal procedure. Finally, the Conservative government will continue to proudly defend the international interests of the Canadian beef industry.
Grain TransportationTony Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in agriculture in this country. One issue needing addressed is the proposed disposal of the federal hopper car fleet. The Farmer Rail Car Coalition states that farmers have been hosed for $47 million since 1992 for the maintenance of these cars.
Will the government release the report of February 2005 by the Commons Standing Committee on Transport before any decision is made on the disposal of these cars?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is reviewing the hopper car file and has not yet decided whether to proceed with the transfer to the FRCC or pursue other options. A decision on releasing the agency's study on the maintenance costs is on hold pending the government's decision on the overall policy direction. One of the key considerations is the decision on the overall policy direction, the direction's impact on producers.
TransportMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean are reeling in uncertainty. To date, the federal government has announced only $262.5 million to expand Highway 175. However, during the election campaign, the Conservative candidates in the area reiterated the government's commitment to assume 50% of the total cost of the project, including cost overruns.
Can the Minister of Transport confirm that this promise will be kept in its entirety?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that this government is currently reviewing this file, as well as many others. Not only are we reviewing them, but we are also resolving them. I saw the Quebec transport minister this morning and assured him that we will deal with a number of files that the previous government could not resolve. The Highway 175 file will certainly be a topic of future discussions with the Quebec government.

Routine Proceedings
Information CommissionerThe Speaker: I have the honour, pursuant to section 39 of the Access to Information Act, to lay upon the Table a special report of the Information Commissioner entitled “Response to the Government's Action Plan for Reform of the Access to Information Act”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to correct something I said in the course of question period in a question posed by the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville. I said that a letter written by Mr. Gwyn Morgan was several years ago. In fact, I was mistaken; it was several months ago.
Further, I made reference to a document which I would like to seek unanimous consent to table, which is a letter dated December 17, 2005, written by Mr. Morgan to the Calgary Herald, where he says:
 My speech clearly stated our country needs a strong immigration program, and that colour, race or religion have no place in the selection process. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
David Dingwall and Attorney General Arbitration ReportMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table, in both official languages, the report in the matter of arbitration between David C. Dingwall and the Attorney General of Canada.
Committees of the HouseMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two reports. The first report is the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official languages, regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the third report later today.
Mr. Speaker, as well I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official languages, regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.
Criminal CodeHon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentencing).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to reintroduce a private member's bill that I have introduced in the three previous parliaments, the first time on May 26, 1999. 
This legislation is designed to address the frequent misuse of the conditional sentencing provision in the Criminal Code of Canada.
The former Liberal government passed section 742.1 of the Criminal Code into law in 1995, despite warnings that without clear instructions to judges, killers and other violent offenders could literally get away with murder. Time and again that is precisely what has happened.
If passed, this bill would ensure that certain serious and violent offences, such as murder, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, drug trafficking, manslaughter, et cetera, would be excluded from consideration for conditional sentencing, meaning the convict would have to serve jail time.
For the first time since I introduced this legislation seven years ago, we have a Prime Minister and justice minister that understand the need to close this conditional loophole to violent offenders. I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and justice minister to rectify that problem in this Parliament for the sake of victims and all law-abiding Canadians.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseGary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
 I should advise the House that the fourth report is deemed adopted pursuant to Standing Order 113(1).
PetitionsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I am once again rising in this House to present a petition signed by many people across the country. The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to the situation.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Jaimie Ledo. He is somebody who went to Portugal with his wife Viviane Souza. They have a four-year-old son named Jimmy who was born in this country. They left before the deportation orders because they were afraid the family would be separated. The mother is from Brazil and the father is from Portugal.
 This is a real human tragedy, and I am trying to see what the government can do. It is unfair to separate husbands and wives from their children, especially Canadian-born children.
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the humanitarian concern in northern Uganda, caring and concerned students from Calgary Christian School marched through the streets of Calgary, over 10 kilometres, to present this petition to my office in Calgary to draw attention to this dire humanitarian concern.
The petitioners would ask that the Government of Canada take a leadership role in ending this terrible conflict.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I pleased to present a petition from my constituents, most from the beautiful city of Mission.
 The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that in current federal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim, with respect to violent crimes. They believe that the vast majority of the public supports laws that protect unborn children from acts of violence against their mothers that also injure or kill the child in their wombs.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of just one.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I introduce a petition by constituents in my riding who are concerned about the ongoing persecution of Egyptian Christians in their home country of Egypt.
 Over the last several years, we have seen a growing degree of violence carried out by extremists and terrorists, and an Egyptian justice system which has failed to protect those minority Christians. These are the same kinds of terrorists who carry out terrorist activities against states like Israel, United States, Spain and other places.
It is my honour to stand in the House against them and in favour of the rights of these Christian minorities and, indeed, of all people around the world.
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to present four petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition has been signed by 85 people in my riding. The petitioners ask that the government recognize traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman and being the lifelong union of such.
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 33 people. The petitioners ask that the government remove the federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the third petition has been signed by 146 people, most of them seniors. The petitioners ask that income splitting for seniors be allowed in a manner that would equalize the taxes assessed to each spouse.
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition has been signed by 44 people. The petitioners ask that therapy for children with autism be recognized within our health act.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand in the House to present a petition that came mostly from University of Alberta students, which is, I might just parenthetically, probably the best university in the whole country, and also a number of others.
The petitioners presented this issue to me with a lot of passion. It is the issue of the international trade in firearms, ammunition and other devices that are used to inflict pain and suffering on a lot of innocent people.
The petitioners would like to have the House of Commons reform the law to restrict the international movement of firearms and other things related to that. Particularly, they are eager that we have a permanent licence application process that includes a more rigorous analysis on the impact of the trading on human rights.
 I am very honoured to present that petition on their behalf to day.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Request for Emergency DebateThe Speaker: The Chair has a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am putting forward this motion under Standing Order 52(2) to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter that needs our immediate attention. It has to do with the agricultural crisis. I am aware of the motion put forward earlier this week by my party, but the farming crisis gets worse with each new day.
A farmer in my riding pleaded with me to not forget the farming crisis. He and his fellow farmers have to go back into the fields to work. They cannot be on Parliament Hill or involved in demonstrations to educate Canadians every day. They need to go to work and they need us, as elected members of Parliament, to do something about the crisis they face.
Higher interest rates announced this week will worsen the crisis. There have been more farm bankruptcies in the past 24 hours. Parliament needs to take the necessary steps to prevent this. If the government were to give a bankable commitment of sufficient emergency funds, as we have suggested, of $1 billion more than announced previously by the government, the farmers could go to their banks and have a fighting chance to deal with those across the table, who are being asked to loan farmers the funds they need to buy the seeds to produce the wheat for the food we eat.
Spring planting is a very small window for these farmers. If they cannot borrow the money now to purchase the seeds to put in the ground, some of these farmers will go under and they will not come back.
Our farmers work very hard to be productive. This crisis is not of their doing. It comes from years of bad trade deals and neglect on the part of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, which have reduced the once proud industry to begging in its own country on its knees by protesting in front of Parliament Hill.
Our farmers have done everything possible to shine a glaring light on the real and immediate danger to our food sovereignty that our country now faces. They have made it abundantly clear that if we are so reckless as to allow the family farm industry to go down for lack of seed money, we will forever regret it as a nation.
This is a life and death emergency for the family farm and our farmers. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to allow this emergency debate today.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for his submissions, but as he has indicated in his remarks, he knows that I have disallowed this debate on an emergency basis for the last two days and, I think, on another occasion before that.
While I am sympathetic with the issues that he has raised and I am aware of the continuing difficulty being faced here, as I am sure all hon. members are, and tempting as it is to spend an afternoon discussing this, I think we are moving ahead with other important matters.
 Rather than change the order of business for today, I will rule as I have in the past, that in my view this application does not meet the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time. 

Government Orders
International Bridges and Tunnels Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that BillC-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: When I interrupted the debate for oral question period, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert had the floor. She had 12 minutes left to make her remarks. The member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert can now continue her speech.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I will explain the situation for people who are listening to us. I will also remind them of the context in which I started my speech, which lasted for eight minutes. 
The subject was Bill C-3, which deals with international bridges and tunnels. I started by saying that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of this bill, with some reservations. 
There is only one international bridge in Quebec, the Sutton bridge, located in the Mississquoi valley, across the Mississquoi-Sutton river. It is an old metal bridge that was built around 1929. It is at least 50 metres long—which is quite long—and spans a gorge in a wonderful landscape. It is worth seeing. It is the property of Vermont and, to a lesser extent, the municipality of Sutton. 
I noted the positive aspects of this bill. A legal vacuum existed, and the Bloc Québécois is happy that there is finally an act governing international bridges and tunnels. The purpose of the act is to improve the security and safety of these structures. Local stakeholders are generally in favour of the provisions of the act as presented. Still, the bill has some pieces missing, and when there are pieces missing from a bill about bridges, that is not a good thing. I talked about the pieces that were missing and the provisions that were excessive. For example, the Bloc is a bit concerned about the broad policing powers that the government has. The government also gives itself legislative powers, but someone else has to shoulder the financial responsibility. In the end, this situation can lead to conflict.
Bill C-3 came out of the former Bill C-44, which was withdrawn and simplified. However, we left several pieces of the former bill behind. A number of sections were very interesting, and several measures were needed. I mentioned more transparent advertising of airline ticket prices.
I will pick up where I left off. I was talking about railway transportation. Bill C-44 contained interesting measures that allowed for legislation on railway transportation. These measures are not included in Bill C-3, and the Bloc is sorry that they are gone. Bill C-44 proposed to improve the shipper's protection system for clients of railway services and repeal the requirement that the Canadian Transportation Agency determine whether the shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm before allowing the shipper recourse against a carrier.
One very interesting point is that Bill C-44 proposed to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to review noise complaints and require railway companies to take steps to minimize the harmful effects of noise resulting from the construction or operation of railways, while considering the railways' operational and service requirements and the interests of the communities concerned. This affects many ridings in Quebec, including Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and Saint-Lambert, which neighbour on mine. 
Bill C-44 also proposed to change the current provisions governing the process of abandonment of rail lines that are no longer necessary for the transportation of goods. Currently, the lines must first be offered for their continued operation. They can then be offered to the different governments. Bill C-44 would have allowed public transportation companies, which in some urban areas serve several municipalities, to benefit from such offers. Thus, they could have obtained corridors and used them for public transportation purposes. Also, the provisions extended to portions of the right of way, such as spurs and sidings, which, in some cases, can be used for public transportation.
Bill C-44 also proposed to improve the dispute settlement process with line owners by allowing operators of publicly funded passenger rail services to ask for arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency when commercial negotiations are not successful, in terms of operating conditions of railway lines under federal jurisdiction, including service fees and charges imposed by the host railway company. Bill C-44 was really comprehensive. It also proposed the conveyance of lines to municipal authorities. 
That is particularly interesting.
The clause in question provided that a railway company wishing to sell a railway line could offer it to urban transit authorities concerned before offering it to municipalities, but after offering it to the federal and Quebec governments. This measure would have ensured the protection of the unique transportation network provided by urban railway corridors, by preventing them from becoming unusable for public transportation as the result of non-collaborative municipal policies. 
The Bloc Québécois considers that railway transportation is an excellent alternative to road transportation. This is why its development must be fostered. It is in this frame of mind that we had asked for and obtained the introduction of Bill C-44. 
Bill C-44 is not Bill C-3. It contained one other measure not found in C-3, regarding train noise. Railway noise, particularly near marshalling yards, is an irritant that affects several Quebec ridings. Clause 32 of Bill C-44 gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine noise complaints and to order the railway companies to undertake measures to prevent unreasonable noise. In its mediations, the Agency was to take into account the economic requirements of the railway companies. Up to 2000, the Agency deemed that it had broad powers, based on section 95, enabling it to force the company subject to a complaint to keep damage to a minimum. However, the Agency was exercising an authority that it did not have.
For this reason, even though some citizens rightly noted that clause 32 of Bill C-44 did not give the Agency as much power as it had in 2000, we must bear in mind that under the old Transportation Act there was no recourse. Furthermore, Bill C-44 did not amend section 95. Thus, the criterion of minimal damage in the operation of a railway was retained. This section gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to arbitrate disputes and balance the need to permit railway companies to do business against the right of people living along rail lines to enjoy a peaceful environment. Thus, the Agency could have forced railway companies to adopt measures to minimize noise from their activities while taking into account the financial imperatives.
A criticism could have been raised about this provision, because it did not limit other nuisances such as fumes from oil and gas or vibrations. Nothing is perfect.
Bill C-44 contained other very interesting proposals. It bolstered consumer protection for air transportation. These measures are not found in Bill C-3.
Bill C-44 also included provisions on airline advertising. It provided for greater control over the sale of airline tickets, among other things by giving the agency jurisdiction over ticket sales advertising, which would respond to a great need. Taxes and hidden fees would have to be included in the advertised price, which is not always the case. Ads giving a one-way fare conditional on the purchase of a return flight could have been prohibited. Some contractual conditions would have had to be posted on the Internet.
Theses transparency measures would have benefited the consumers and the airlines, who would have benefited from a better framework and enjoyed healthier competition. Consumer groups had called for these measures.
Bill C-44 contained other interesting provisions on Via Rail Canada, which are not included in Bill C-3. It enacted legislation on Via Rail Canada that would have replaced the articles of incorporation of the crown corporation. When it was created in 1997, VIA Rail was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. It did not obtain its own act.
The purpose of Bill C-44 was to manage and ensure rail transportation service that was safe and efficient. This new framework gave Via Rail more flexibility to make its own business decisions. The rights and obligations of Via Rail were upheld in Bill C-44, but all that has disappeared with the Conservative government. 
In closing, the Bloc Québécois has a great number of very serious reservations about this bill on international bridges and tunnels.
As we know, there is only one international bridge in Quebec, in Sutton, as I mentioned earlier. We have some reservations about Bill C-3, which I have just talked about, especially since it was based on Bill C-44, but is a lot less complete. It was totally simplified.
Nonetheless, as I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-3 in the hopes of seeing the clauses from Bill C-44 reappear in another form as soon as possible.
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to comment on Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels. 
The term “international” makes me think of the softwood lumber agreement signed yesterday. The Prime Minister and members of the government are all puffed up over this agreement, but they should think the matter over a bit more.
A NAFTA tribunal already handed down a decision in our favour. The tariffs imposed by the Americans were excessive, not to mention illegal. How can a government accountable to Canadian and Quebec industries negotiate an agreement when a tribunal has already ruled in our favour? I do not understand. I have a problem with that.
The Conservatives think that losing a billion dollars is a good deal. They should have negotiated knowing that the industry is in a slump and has lost a lot of money. They should have reached an agreement that really benefits the industry, which deserves our support and encouragement in this dispute. We cannot just throw in the towel, sign an agreement with the Americans and present it to the industry, saying that we know its back is to the wall and it has no money because it has already shelled out $5 billion to try to foil the U.S. government's plan to destroy the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I have a problem with that.
Why did the government not support the industry, by recalling that the court had ruled in our favour? Why did it not support it financially so that it could continue to fight? We will not let another government do this to us. We are right and we must support that ruling that was in our favour.
Unfortunately, this is not what the government is doing. It is negotiating a $4 billion agreement, which makes us lose $1 billion. It then says that this is not bad, because everyone, particularly the provinces, is happy that we have reached this agreement with the American government. I do not think that everyone is happy. Businesses had to accept it because they did not have any money left. 
Last year, the Conservatives were bragging, saying that this money should have been given to businesses in the softwood lumber sector in order to support them financially. What are they doing now that they are in office? They solve the problem right away and reach a $4 billion agreement, that is $1 billion less than expected. And they are happy with this. However, I believe that the industry is not so happy. 
For months, the Conservatives urged the Liberal government to support the softwood lumber industry. Once they get in office, they do nothing of the kind and have reached an agreement that is unacceptable to the industry. I have a hard time understanding how they could stand up and brag that they have settled the softwood lumber dispute, something the previous government was never able to do. I am sorry, but I do not agree.
Let us go back to our bridges. I find equally ridiculous that the government would propose bills that do not mean anything. They do not even know what they are writing. We see a good example in clauses 14, 15 and 16: “The Governor in Council may...make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair...the operation and use...[and ] the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels—” 
My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was just extolling the bridge in Sutton. I would like to underscore that the municipality is responsible for repairs, through the Quebec Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, while Vermont assumes approximately 70% of the cost, depending on resources. How can the Canadian government make maintenance decisions when the American government is paying 70% of the costs? Really now. The federal government has nothing to do with it. Quebec pays 30% and the Americans pay the other 70%. And yet the federal government wants to decide when repairs should be made? I think it will find itself alone on that bridge.
One clause states that the government will order the maintenance and that the Americans will pay for the maintenance. Can my colleague explain this contradiction?
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to respond to the comments of my colleague from Shefford and to answer his question.
It is true that there is apparent inconsistency. I mentioned it in my speech.
The Minister of Transport is here and is listening carefully. During question period, he said that he met with the Quebec Minister of Transport this morning. I take this opportunity to tell him that there should be a train overpass on the Seigneurial road in the city of Saint-Bruno. That overpass would improve the traffic situation for people from the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and the surrounding cities.
I am happy to see the minister listening. I hope that he will eventually talk to the Quebec Minister of Transport, if he has not already done so, about this serious problem in the area of Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert.
As I told my colleague from Shefford, Bill C-3 is unsatisfactory. Bill C-44 was better. Nonetheless, the Bloc will vote in favour of the bill.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a problem understanding. Why has Bill C-3 been introduced since it is less than Bill C-44 could let us hope for? That bill seemed satisfactory enough. 
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer that pertinent question because I am not privy to the Conservative government's decision-making process.
How can it oversimplify things enough to come up with a Speech from the Throne including only five priorities? How can it avoid other considerations and other sensitive issues beside its five priorities?
Bill C-44 dealt with several sensitive issues. The Conservatives could have continued to serve many different groups. I think in particular of air transport users. We know that plane tickets are advertised in newspapers, but the ads are always wrong. We end up trying to compare things that cannot be compared at all, because prices are not given and because there are several conditions to satisfy. They will sell us a one-way ticket if we buy a return ticket, even though we only need a one-way ticket. Buying a plane ticket is very complicated. Consumers would be well served if they could get all the measures included in Bill C-44, and sooner rather than later .
City-dwellers are victims of the excessive noise coming from railroad yards. Measures should be taken to reduce that noise. I did not feel that the Conservative government was sensitive to that problem. People are affected by many other things that do not count for the Conservative Party. It is sad, of course. In spite of that, we are ready to give the government another chance. We ask it to produce a new bill as quickly as possible.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to stand in the House today to speak to this important piece of public business, Bill C-3, because it affects bridges and tunnels that connect us with our neighbour to the south, the United States of America.
It is an important bill and one that we need to get behind and support but it is not perfect. It needs amendments. It needs to be put through the process of this place. At committee we need to hear from some folks. At the end of the day we in this caucus are hoping that the government will be open to some suggestions because many of us have done some long and hard work on this.
The member from Windsor West, in particular, who was not able to be here, has been very passionate and knowledgeable on this and has worked very hard in his community of Windsor to try to not only resolve the bottleneck on the bridge but also its inadequacy because it affects his whole community and the economy of the area surrounding Windsor, not to mention of the economy of the province. 
I have some issues myself that flow out of my own community. We have a bridge that needs upgrading, maintenance and more authority to ensure we have the security that is required. I want to talk about that as well in speaking to the bill.
As this is my first opportunity in this Parliament to speak and to participate in the way being here allows us, I want to say how pleased I am to be back and to have been re-elected in my own community of Sault Ste. Marie and the district surrounding it: the wonderful communities on St. Joseph Island, Hilton Beach , Richards Landing , Bruce Mines, Desbarats, Echo Bay, Hayden, Searchmont, Goulais, Montreal River and Batchawana Bay. I represent all those wonderfully exciting, vital and viable places situated on the shores of Lake Huron and Lake Superior and I hope to represent them well here in the House. I appreciate their support for a second time to the House of Commons. It was an honour and a privilege to have served the community of Sault Ste. Marie for 13 years provincially. I enjoyed that.
I look forward to working with the government of the day and the opposition parties in getting some things done for my community, for the people of Sault Ste. Marie and for all of northern Ontario. We have some issues there. Our economy has been challenged for a while. We need the partnership of the senior level of government if we are going to turn around some of the longstanding industrial sectors that at the moment are struggling to get breath, so they can take advantage of what we know are the opportunities and challenges out there.
We know that in northern Ontario the very first thing we need to do, if we are going to protect our economy, is to stand up for what we have. We have always been a resource based industry in northern Ontario and always will be. However I will be speaking with some of the companies in the forestry sector when I go home this weekend to hear their response to the deal that was cut by the government with the United States of America on softwood lumber to see whether it will be helpful to them. 
They have heard promises over the last couple of years by the senior level of government and have heard talk about substantial money but nothing has actually happened. We have communities, like Dubreuilville and Smooth Rock Falls, that are hanging on by their fingernails. Workers who have lost their jobs do not know what tomorrow will bring. They do not know whether they will have to leave town to find work to support their families. They will be looking very closely at this agreement to see if there is anything concrete in there. 
My leader has suggested, with the first look at this and after listening to the Prime Minister last night, that there really was not anything concrete that we could grab on to. However we are hoping that there is, that there is something for those communities and those workers that will carry them over until this industry turns itself around and we can again see forestry as the exciting opportunity it is to provide employment, economic opportunity, to attract investment and to actually work with everyone to ensure it is sustainable over the long haul. 
Forestry is only one sector. We have a number of resource based sectors in northern Ontario that we need to protect. We talked about that in the election. The people in my riding decided that the things I was saying on those issues were important enough for me to be sent back here to continue that challenge.
That brings me to the bill in front of us today, Bill C-3. How we get our goods to market is an important question for northern Ontario and the resource sector economy that serves Canada so well. Of course, bridges and tunnels are the lifelines that stand between us and the U.S. market which is so important. If we do not manage those pieces of infrastructure well, we will end up with the problems that we are experiencing today in spades. We will have bottlenecks, slowdowns and security and safety issues that we will not know how to deal with.
I speak on behalf of my colleague from Windsor West and my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby who cannot be here today to lead off on this important bill when I say that we think this is a move in the right direction and something that needs to be done quickly so we can deal with some of the challenges that we have been facing for a number of years where these important pieces of infrastructure are concerned.
We are saying, though, that the bill is not perfect. I am pleased that the Minister of Transport is here today to hear us say this because we are speaking to him directly when we put out the challenge that the bill needs to go to committee. The committee needs to hear from our members, as well as other members around the House, and it needs to hear from those who are directly affected by what will happen when the bill becomes law. We are hoping he will be open to amendments. If there are changes that we think would be helpful, we hope he will listen and work with us to ensure they are included so those areas of concern can be addressed.
One of the concerns in the Windsor area and in Fort Frances in northwestern Ontario is the question of actual ownership of the bridges. I know the government is concerned about that and wants to have some control over the ownership as to who at the end of the day will own these important facilities. I think it is a critical question.
As a matter of fact, we would encourage the government to look at public ownership, that it should be the government itself. Because of the safety and security issues that have arisen since 9/11 and some of the initiatives coming from south of the border, the United States government, the western hemisphere initiative, et cetera, we need to have more control over these bridges and tunnels, and not only that, but with control we also need to take responsibility for ensuring they are safe and secure.
We are talking big money. We are talking about a significant investment to build new bridges. Windsor has the expectation that it will happen. A lot of work has been done over the last few years to make that happen. However the ownership and control question that is being addressed somewhat in the bill still presents as a very difficult proposition in that area, just as it is a difficulty in Fort Frances.
The bridge at Fort Frances, just as the bridge in Sault Ste. Marie, is an important connector to markets. Some very large and heavy products are transported from steel mills and lumber mills across the area into markets in the United States of America. We want to ensure those bridges are managed properly and that the cost of transporting products across those bridges continues to be affordable. We believe the only way to guarantee that is for government to actually own those facilities, to be willing to put in place the moneys necessary to ensure they are both safe and secure and that maintenance is done on a regular basis.
The bridge in my riding is run now by an authority. At one time there was a combination of funding from the Michigan department of transportation and the Ontario government. Now a local authority runs that bridge and it is forever trying to figure out how to get the money it needs to just maintain the bridge and ensure it continues to be safe and secure. That does not even include the personnel required at either end of the bridge to ensure the flow of traffic continues at a pace that is convenient and helpful to those going back and forth and wanting to access both countries. 
The question of ownership of these bridges is central to the bill and we need to discuss that further. We are hoping the government will be open to some suggestions that we might make around the government itself stepping up to the plate and taking hold of that.
Secondary to that but equally as important is the issue of financing them. Who will put the money up to build new bridges? When we look at the level of traffic and the impact of the backup of that traffic into communities such as Windsor, there obviously is a need for new bridges. The member for Windsor West has spoken both eloquently and intelligently to that fact in this House and he would want me to say that the government needs to be forthcoming. We heard announcements over and over again from the previous government about infrastructure funds and border crossing funds but seemingly hard to get a handle on so that those communities could actually get those funds and make the repairs or the investments that are necessary.
Hopefully, something will be in the budget on May 2 that speaks to the very real requirement of a significant investment in these pieces of infrastructure because they are so critical to our trade, not to mention our security and safety. 
Where Windsor has the need for a new crossing, whether it is a bridge or a tunnel is up to it, hopefully, with the leadership and direction in this bill from the federal government, that will happen and it will happen in a way that will consider the impact on the people who live in the areas adjoining the roadways that will have to be built and developed, not to mention the environmental impact of traffic if there are backups, as there are now, and the spewing of exhaust that goes into the community and affects people and the quality of air.
In my own community we are hoping to become a hub of some significance. We already are an important hub but we want to become more important and more significant in the offering of how we get goods to market from our country into the United States and back and forth. We have developed a multi-modal plan in Sault Ste. Marie where we have in our back yard access to rail, road, water and air. All of the modes of transportation come to Sault Ste. Marie. We are strategically located at the centre of the Great Lakes. In fact, when we look at the map we see that we are strategically located in the centre of Canada and in the centre of North America. So we could become-- 
Pat Martin:  It should be the capital.
Tony Martin:  We should be the capital, exactly. Why did somebody not think of that before, right after Winnipeg.
We believe we are a very important strategic location for the transport of goods, people and services back and forth between our two countries. The potential there is relatively untapped. The community itself is spending a significant amount of money. We want to thank the federal and provincial governments for their involvement in developing the roadways that are necessary but more work needs to be done. We need to make more investments into our rail infrastructure so we can have more rail traffic coming through Sault Ste. Marie and across the border. A deep sea harbour would be nice and some more competition in the air service that we get in and out of Sault Ste. Marie.
If that were all put in place we think Sault Ste. Marie would have tremendous potential to become a very important transportation hub. Central and key to that is the development of our bridge. We need more money to make the bridge capable of handling more traffic. If we become the multi-modal centre we think we have the potential to become, that bridge will have to move more traffic back and forth. It will have to be expanded. Something has to be done on the bridge to deal with that. However, as has happened in Windsor, we do not want to attract all this traffic only to find that now we have a backup as there is in Windsor creating all the problems that exist there.
We want to ensure that we are proactive, that we are looking ahead, that we are thinking ahead and that we will be ready when this new multi-modal project becomes a reality in our community. When people drive across the border, whichever way they are going, we want to ensure they are able to do so in a safe and quick fashion so they will want to come back again.
We would need significant help from the federal government in terms of investment in that infrastructure. Our bridge plaza needs to be expanded so that more services can be offered there. We need more personnel working at the border. We need border guards and people checking identification, and we need more facilities so that people have more readily available access.
I am here today on behalf of my caucus to say that we think this is a good bill that deserves support, at least at this reading. It should go to committee where hopefully the government will be willing to listen to our members, particularly the members for Windsor West and Burnaby--New Westminster with respect to some amendments that could be made to make this bill stronger and more useful in terms of how we manage the crossings between ourselves and the United States, and how we in fact do protect the security and the safety of those facilities and make them more accessible to our industries in particular, but also to the people who cross back and forth.
We have industries that are directly dependent on access to those bridges. Whether it is tourism, our resource based sectors or other industries, we need those tunnels and bridges to be available and well maintained. We need those bridges to be safe and secure and to be owned in fact, if that is going to happen, by the federal government, so that it will have the control it says it wants, to protect our interests and to make sure we are responding to some of the realities of today where security is concerned.
We are looking forward to working with the government on this bill at committee. We hope it will seriously consider and take heed of amendments we will bring forward. If we see those amendments included in the bill when it comes back to the House, the government can be assured of our support.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my namesake from Sault Ste. Marie one pointed question. He is well aware that Manitoba benefited greatly from a former infrastructure program. In fact, the Red River floodway, which is the massive Duff's ditch, as we call it, was the largest single engineering job since the Panama Canal. That ditch is now being dug deeper in a tripartite cooperative measure using money from the former infrastructure program. 
Are some of the infrastructure initiatives in his area geared toward a tripartite approach? In other words, does provincial money need to be matched federally before it can roll? Does he see the need for a new infrastructure tripartite program from the Conservative government to make up for the dismantling, or now the loss, of the one we were enjoying under the Liberal government?
[Interjection]
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member is indeed right. He speaks to the nub of one of the points that I was trying to make in my speech. It is one thing to pass an act that gives the government control, responsibility and more power where important infrastructure is concerned, but it is another thing to be willing to come forward with the money that is needed to actually make that happen.
 In this instance, the member is right. If the federal government does not feel that it has within its bank account the money that it needs to invest in some of this important infrastructure, then yes, partnerships need to be developed, and communities and provincial governments need to be involved because they have a responsibility too.
The government has a responsibility for this and it has to take responsibility for some important pieces of infrastructure that need to be maintained and kept safe and secure. Bridges and tunnels are part of that package that the government needs to take seriously and be willing to invest in.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my congratulations to my colleague for his speech. I am interested in the issue surrounding the ability of the federal government to make decisions that can impact many of these communities. As a former mayor and someone who has been involved in municipal decision making throughout much of my career, I am always concerned when we see opportunities for people at the community level to lose some of the control they have over their lands and their way of life.
Within any aspect of this, and this may apply in Windsor as well as many other places in the country, we need to be always cognizant that municipal governments are close to the people. They understand what the people want. They understand the conditions of the communities and the surrounding areas. If we are going to put in legislation that takes those issues away, I want to know what my colleague thinks about it.
[Interjection]
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks to an important aspect of this bill that needs to be considered in regard to there being some way to amend the bill to incorporate some of these community interests and the need for the community to be involved. 
As our colleague from Windsor West has suggested, in Windsor we have a very challenging circumstance that the community has been intimately involved in but has not able to bring to any real resolution. The bridge in Windsor is owned by a private U.S. company, and the bridge and the surrounding areas are plagued by a traffic and congestion nightmare. Solutions range from streamlining the movement of traffic to achieve better access to the bridge, building and expanding a pre-clearance facility for the bridge to expedite the process, building more access routes outside local towns, or building new infrastructure. 
Municipalities on the Canadian side of the bridge do not want their streets turned into parking lots for trucks, because they stand to lose on the environment, quality of life and tourism fronts. The Americans have been able to move faster on this because of fewer environmental and quality of life concerns. 
We do not want that to happen on this side of the bridge. We want communities to be intimately involved in these decisions because this affects them directly. We need to make sure that this is included in this bill and in the thinking of the government as the bill comes forward. I am sure my colleague from Windsor West would agree with that.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague for his speech, which was very lively, as always. However, I wonder if he is concerned about another point. Last year, when we debated the Quarantine Act, we talked a lot about laws concerning domestic traffic and difficulties, the problems and risks of transmission of potentially endemic diseases.
Does my colleague think that, in the international bridges and tunnels act, we should also take into consideration the risks inherent to communicable diseases? As he was suggesting earlier, should we really have skilled personnel at these locations, that is, people who are very knowledgeable about such issues?
[Interjection]
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is one of our party's concerns. That is why we think this bill needs to go to committee. It is so that we can hear from people like the member herself, the member for Windsor West, the member for Burnaby--New Westminster, the member for Western Arctic and others around these very important questions. It is so we can reach out and actually have people come forward from the municipalities that surround these infrastructures and hear from them.
 The member is right when she says there is the potential for all kinds of environmental impacts. We need to know that, we need to understand that, and we need to have that out front and dealt with before we go ahead and build these things. As well, the federal government needs to be responsible in terms of money to actually deal with it.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I took some interest in my colleague's points around who builds this infrastructure and who owns this infrastructure. Recently we have had many years in which we have seen the so-called P3 arrangement not work for the best interests of Canadians, particularly in infrastructure, particularly when we are building infrastructure that is for the public yet there are certain people who are making profits on it, notwithstanding the fact that we know it is private companies that actually do the building. 
What I am talking about is seeing a private consortium that takes over the infrastructure and then turns around and asks the citizens of this country to pay yet again. I certainly would not like to see that happen. I wonder if the member would comment on that.
[Interjection]
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. It is the kind of point and question we need raised at committee when the bill is considered so that we can deal with those issues.
Certainly the question of ownership, as I said in my speech, is central. I know that the government wants to have some say and control in that. We believe it should go further and that these pieces of infrastructure should in fact be owned by the federal government so that we can control things like the price of crossing.
For example, the bridge in Fort Francis is being sold off. The existing owner already has driven the cost of crossing that bridge to a point where it becomes a competitive disadvantage to northwestern Ontario. We hope the federal government will consider buying not only that bridge but also the bridge in Windsor. We also hope that if the government is going to build a new one that it not go to some private consortium to build it, that the government itself build it so that we really and truly have control over this.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-3, which is legislation for which I and my colleagues from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, the province of Quebec and New Brunswick have been asking.
 I commend the minister for being very open and incredibly up to speed. He is very seized with the priority of our international crossings and specifically with the corridor in Windsor-Detroit. After having many meetings with him and his staff, I commend him for making a very serious statement. 
This is the second piece of legislation, following our important federal accountability act. In the previous Liberal government, there was an incomplete version of the bill. It was the Liberals' 43rd piece of legislation and it never made it through.
 Clearly it is a priority for the Conservative government. We are making a clear statement that international trade, the environment and our communities are Conservative priorities. The fact that we continue to speak on the issue of the international bridges and tunnels act clearly demonstrates the scope of the legislative vacuum that was left by the previous Liberal government, which this Conservative bill proposes to fill.
Back home and just outside of my riding in the city of Windsor, we have the busiest international border crossing in the world. At peak times, we have $1 million per minute of two-way trade that traverses through that corridor. We have anywhere from 7,000 to, on peak days, 10,000 trucks per day that cross through the corridor.
 We also have very aging infrastructure there. We have a rail tunnel that was built in 1909. We have a vehicle tunnel that was built in the late twenties. The Ambassador Bridge, which is the busiest crossing, was built as well in the late 1920s. The most recent piece of infrastructure we have is more than three-quarters of a century old. 
Clearly there is a need to add additional capacity to that corridor. We need infrastructure renewal as our economy and trade continues to grow.
The federal government is one of four partners in a binational process in the Windsor-Detroit corridor that is working toward this goal. We need Bill C-3, however, to allow the federal government to have the proper oversight for a new crossing in the corridor as well for the existing assets. Getting the infrastructure and having the right powers behind it is very important. 
The city of Windsor has 9.3% unemployment. That is one of the highest of the cities in Canada right now. Investment has been leaving the Essex-Windsor region. A number of companies have closed their doors over the last few years, mostly in the automobile sector and the parts related sectors.
 Other investment is clearly not coming to the region. Industries have decided that the border is a problem right now and there is no predictability, as the industry talks about, of crossing at that corridor on time for just-in-time industries. They are choosing not to locate their factories there and bringing new jobs to the region. They are choosing other locations. They are locating in Michigan, for example, Ohio, or even into the southern United States. They are just not coming to our communities.
I know from my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex, were it not for some federal government intervention, his riding would have lost the Navistar plant as well. It would have gone to points south.
Economically speaking, the border is an ever present reality to the communities. It is also very important for the number of people who are employed in these industries, for the quality of life for their families and for our ability to support key social programs like health care and education, which are vital for the quality of life. If those jobs go, the tax dollars go with them, and the charitable dollars. Our region is one of the most giving in the entire nation. That is because we have high paying manufacturing jobs to support it.
In the last three years the United Way, just as an example, has continued to decline, year over year, in the amount of charitable giving. The jobs that are leaving our communities are having a very real impact on community projects through the lack of charitable giving. Bill C-3 would go a long way in giving the federal government the necessary powers to continue to move forward on new capacity at the Windsor corridor.
In a broader sense our 24 international bridges and tunnels that handle vehicle traffic have been governed for a long time by an assortment of inconsistent mechanisms, a patchwork of different people having different control over the crossings. This has resulted in the authorization of everything from the incorporation of a company to construct an international crossing to the creation of a binational authority to manage and operate the crossing.
Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes that international crossings are within the federal jurisdiction, but the government has really been unable to exercise its authority adequately and across all those crossings because of the absence of a legislative framework that gives the ability for general application relevant to all crossings. 
Historically we have had the enactment of several individual special acts of Parliament, some of which predate Confederation, where the preferred method of previous federal governments was to authorize the construction and meet the specific reality of international crossings by these individual acts of Parliament. 
Any time a new crossing was built, it required a new act of Parliament. If another one was to be built, there had to be another separate act of Parliament. As a result, more than 53 special acts of Parliament spanning, pardon the pun, 140 years of our nation's history were created independently to deal with the specific reality of each of Canada's 24 international bridges and tunnels that carried vehicle traffic.
What occurred on 9/11 was a very important turning point with respect to our international crossings. I can speak with some first-hand knowledge of it from living in the Windsor-Essex region. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were 12 kilometre backups of trucks on Huron Church Road to the end of the 401. That was not just in one lane. That was in two lanes of traffic and sometimes three. Seeing this type of lineup, trucks would go down neighbourhood residential streets, where trucks are not allowed, trying to find shortcuts to the bridge, hoping to get on a little quicker. There was this massive gridlock, endangering the safety of residents of the communities on either side of Huron Church Road.
Vehicles sitting and idling caused pollution. Resources of the municipalities of Windsor and LaSalle were stretched, as one example, due to the payment of overtime to police officers who sat at individual intersections to ensure that trucks were not blocking them. I remember trying to cross Huron Church Road with that kind of truck traffic. After the light turned green one would have to wait an awful long time to make sure a truck was not going to try to go through. In that situation a tie goes to the truck and that is not a good scenario.
The events on 9/11 also brought us the reality on the U.S. side, one that we cannot necessarily change because it is a U.S. mentality, of security trumping trade. It is very important. It really affects how we do business across our international crossings. The security provisions in Bill C-3 would allow the government to obtain detailed information on security issues from all bridge authorities. Currently that is not happening.
More specifically, if we take the example of the Ambassador Bridge, which is a private entity, it reportedly contracts out safety for the bridge asset to a private company. That is what has been reported, although the public does not have the scrutiny of that for sure. In a heightened climate where Canada might be on Osama bin Laden's terrorist list, it becomes a very valuable asset worth protecting. Bill C-3 would ensure that this and other vital assets would be prepared for the post 9/11 realities.
However, in a post 9/11 era, in the climate of heightened security, it must co-exist with a heightened interest in expanding our trade corridors. The federal oversight of international borders must protect the national interest by ensuring environmentally sound, economically efficient, secure and safe international crossings. Bill C-3 promises to address many of these problems and others filling the legislative gap, providing the federal government with several mechanisms that would provide authorization for the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, repair, transfer, safety and security of international crossings.
A key mechanism of the bill on which I want to focus a bit more is a provision that would authorize the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, to issue letters patent of incorporation for the establishment of a corporation to construct and operate an international crossing. This provision would effectively allow the governor in council to issue such letters patent to create any company to build or operate an international bridge or tunnel. The corporation would be authorized to carry out its activities both inside and outside of Canada where so permitted.
The comprehensive information found in the letters patent, such as the composition of the board of directors, their obligations and conduct, the ownership of the corporation and its management, the financial reporting requirements and borrowing authority and any other provision which is deemed appropriate, would establish the limitations of the corporation and would promote the accountability of these corporations in a manner similar to corporations subject to the Canada Business Corporations Act. In addition, so as to effectively issue letters patent of incorporation, the governor in council would also be authorized to amend, revoke and make regulations pertaining to letters patent.
It is worth mentioning that the letters patent provision would be an enabling provision and would not be mandatory. As such, any new crown corporation or corporation otherwise established could still build or operate an international crossing. In fact, it may be the case that the specific realities of the new international crossing or its body corporate, would require special considerations. 
For example, purely private corporations would likely require incorporation pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act while purely public corporations could be made crown corporations. It may even by the case that incorporation pursuant to specific U.S. federal or state legislation could be required, such as our Niagara region bridges.
What is clear is the provision would provide the federal government with the flexibility to incorporate any company to build or construct an international crossing without necessarily resorting to the Canada Business Corporations Act, U.S. legislation or a special act of Parliament.
Furthermore, in order to promote growth in the Canadian economy while simultaneously protecting national interests, the legislative framework for international crossings should be sufficiently flexible so as to meet new and emerging issues. Alternate means of organizing and governing the corporations that construct and operate our international bridges and tunnels should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to private and public interests. The letters patent provision would provide the government with sufficient flexibility to create a company, subject to governmental safeguards, without being subject to the rules that govern crown corporations.
Therefore, the bill would allow for the consideration of alternate methods of organization such as public-private partnerships, binational authorities and corporations that are neither public nor public in nature where government oversight would be warranted and vital to the efficient construction and operation of the international crossing.
I know my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have raised some issue over control and ownership. Bill C-3 would extend sufficient control for the federal government, the first time it is going to do so. I know we have the binational process in the Windsor corridor, for example, where the federal and Ontario government, the municipalities, citizens, residents and citizen groups are all participating in moving forward on questions of governance for this specific crossing in that process. This has been a very good and productive, publicly involved process to determine issues of governance on the new crossing.
Bill C-3 and the letters patent provision would attempt to minimize ineffective use of legislative power that for years was exercised to create separate, independent, and inconsistent pieces of legislation on a case by case basis. This bill would fill that legislative gap by offering legislation of general application that would apply broadly to all international crossings.
I am asking all members of the House to seriously consider and support this bill, and the important role that it would have in providing Canadians with the tools to effectively manage and govern their international crossings, while protecting Canada's national interests.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Essex on his re-election. Over the last parliamentary session I got to know him very well. I would like to commend him on all the work that he did with me with regard to the Conservative auto caucus.
Oshawa and Essex have a lot in common. One of the things we have in common is the crossing at the Windsor-Detroit border. Everywhere we went, as part of the auto caucus, we heard how important it was for the government to move forward and address these important issues. 
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says that over $2.5 billion is lost every year because we do not have this extra crossing. After 13 years of neglect by the Liberal government and not moving forward on this important issue, I want to ask the member, what effect will it have on the workers and families in his community, now that we have a government that is willing to take this important bill forward to the Canadian public?
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with my hon. colleague in the last Parliament as part of the Conservative auto caucus, moving forward of course in terms of getting the government auto caucus up and going, and getting on top of all the important issues.
I come from the auto industry. I spent six and a half years on the line at DaimlerChrysler's Pillette Road truck assembly plant before it was closed and the Windsor assembly plant, helping build the Grand Caravan, the Town and Country minivans, and the Pacifica's that move our families along here in Canada, in North America and around the world.
A key item in talking with not only the CEOs and the major executives of these corporations but talking with the Canadian Auto Workers union and right down to the rank and file, predictability at the crossing, particularly in Windsor, is vital to keeping the auto industry moving. 
This is vital to keeping our economies going, not only in Ontario but in Canada. It is critical that we secure additional capacity. That is why there is a binational process that is in place there. They are very close to locating the specific crossing, and the access routes and plazas are all being determined with public, municipal government and provincial input.
As an individual member, I am participating through the binational process and lending my own personal opinions and moving the opinions of the people of Essex forward through that process. We are close. However, the one key ingredient that is missing to ensure that we are ready for when that crossing is ready to go is legislation such as Bill C-3. This is a critical gap that was left out by the previous government. The Liberals got around to it far too late to do anything meaningful about it. 
I am pleased that the present transport minister is making Bill C-3 a serious priority for the Conservative government. It is our second piece of legislation after the federal accountability act. This clearly demonstrates that the government is seized with the priority of that crossing in the Windsor-Essex region. We will keep moving that forward, so that we have jobs and a good quality of life in our communities, not only in Windsor--Essex but across Ontario and Canada.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has worked in the auto industry and understands it very well. 
I am interested in a couple of issues with respect to the direction the government is taking. When a government invests in infrastructure, it is investing in the future. It is investing in transportation. Right now, 40% of Canada's exports are moved by rail which is by far the preferred environmental transportation link. With improved scheduling, rail can compete well with trucks on the highway.
Does my colleague think there is a philosophy at work here about the way we should go with our transportation? CN Rail is now established right across North America with excellent connections. We are building rail as an energy efficient and useful form of freighting that should be expanded. 
Does my colleague think there are opportunities in the Windsor region to look at improving the rail system versus improving the road system, if there is a long term philosophy of greening this country?
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have been having ongoing discussions with the transport minister with respect to the renewal of rail infrastructure in our corridor. We have some of the worst rail lines, particularly the stretch from Windsor to Chatham. As I mentioned earlier, the rail tunnel that was built in 1909 has been somewhat renovated but does not handle double stack and the modern inner-model type transports down there. I am going to continue to have this discussion with the minister toward some solutions.
As I recall, this bill specifically is about the powers necessary to have oversight over international crossings. We are moving forward on the binational process to choose a crossing for the most pressing need which is to keep trucks moving and not idling on our city streets and not causing safety problems. 
We have an immediate need that we are addressing here. I am convinced that this legislation is a key piece of that. It would give us the type of oversight and control that we need as the process moves forward. 
I am also convinced that when the time comes, the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, is going to come through with the necessary long range funding to ensure that infrastructure goes forward in this corridor. I am very confident of that. I am pleased to be working with this minister on these projects.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's position on a specific issue.
What does the member think about the fact that Bill C-3 has removed the measures relating to the powers of the Canadian Transportation Agency to receive complaints concerning noise resulting from railway activities? The clause in question, which was part of Bill C-44, has been removed in Bill C-3. 
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important issue to the member.
With respect to Bill C-3 and its differences with the previous incomplete Bill C-44 put forward by the Liberal government in the last Parliament, we have made two very substantial improvements. We have included some provisions with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway and crossings there and the ability to have oversight over transactions with respect to new assets. 
This is clearly something that the Liberals forgot, but it was important for us to put in this bill, particularly when we look at the asset in Fort Frances and its pending sale to a private interest. It is important that the government have the necessary oversight over such types of transactions. In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process for moving forward. This private interest is moving very quickly to twin the span there which really threatens to undermine a process that we are a partner in. 
It is important that we get this bill through in a very timely fashion without holding up too many add-ons because the clock is ticking with respect to this private interest moving forward. It is a project that, in my humble opinion, is not in the national interest, certainly not in the community interest. 
It is important that all members in the House support this legislation and get it through quickly, so that we can avert this type of situation or at least have some oversight over what is happening. This is a necessary piece of legislation. I am pleased that we have beefed up what the Liberals failed to do with their legislation. 
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address the House on Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. I am pleased that this is the first piece of legislation introduced into this Parliament after Bill C-2, the federal accountability act. 
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Transport, for taking this initiative so quickly into the life of the 39th Parliament. Some of the issues in this bill were addressed in the 38th Parliament, but, I make the point again, by introducing them in the dying days of that Parliament, they had no chance of being enacted. So, I am pleased at his initiative and I thank him, as well, for giving me the honour of seconding the introduction of the bill.
I know how hard the member for Essex worked on this issue and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from the Niagara Peninsula, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. He and I, in the 38th Parliament, had many discussions on all aspects of border issues and the international bridges, and the importance that they represent, not only to our area but to the country.
When we look at the perspective of our vital trade relationship with the United States and the communities and families dependent upon stable trade, Bill C-3 is an important part of our future and infrastructure renewal process.
In my remarks, I will discuss the role of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, in the future construction of international bridges and tunnels, and the impacts that these fixed links have on our prosperity and economic security.
Finally, I want to address the importance of this bill in my area of Niagara Falls, which is home to four international bridges. Anybody who has grown up in the Niagara Peninsula, as my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook and myself have, can attest to their importance and are very familiar with those four international crossings.
 I dare say, and I may be corrected but I do not think so, we have more international crossings in the Niagara Peninsula than any other area of the country. I do not know of anybody else who has more than four international bridges. 
We have the Lewiston-Queenston bridge. I am just old enough to remember when that came into service, in the fall of 1960. I remember us talking in school how pleased we were and how pleased our area was to have the new crossing between the village of Queenston and Lewiston, New York.
For many years, we have been serviced by the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara. It is now a NEXUS bridge. One has to have a NEXUS pass, which is part of the security operations between our two countries and is a process that expedites traffic for frequent crossers between the two countries.
 In Fort Erie, we have the Peace Bridge. I do not know if there are too many Canadians who would not know about the Peace Bridge and its importance to international trade. 
Finally, in Niagara Falls, Ontario, we have the Rainbow Bridge. The Rainbow Bridge has been in operation for a little over 65 years. This is where many of the tourists who visit from the United States cross over into Niagara. This is one of the major gateways to Canada. The Rainbow Bridge was a replacement for the old Honeymoon City Bridge in the mid-1930s.
 In the winter of 1936 there was a huge ice jam on the lower Niagara River. I must explain to people that there actually is very little ice in the Niagara Peninsula and my colleague will attest to that fact. It is sometimes known as the banana belt of Canada and we wear that label very proudly. It is a little more mild than most places in Canada. In that particular year, the lower Niagara River was jammed with ice that came from other parts of the province, from up north.
In that particular year, the lower Niagara River was jammed with ice that had come from other parts of the province up north. It worked its way down and lodged in the lower Niagara River just below the American Falls and the Canadian Horseshoe Falls. Over the course of several weeks, the buildup of ice eventually knocked out the underpinnings of the Honeymoon Bridge. After the collapse of that bridge, there was a scramble to replace the structure because of its vital importance. 
Interestingly enough, while one might think it was the federal government that stepped in to replace that structure, that was actually not the case. Members of the House and certainly Canadians know the difficult times the 1930s posed. Money was in very short supply. One of the options that did not come to fruition was a federal government span. 
Provincial resources and initiatives at the provincial level replaced the old Honeymoon Bridge with what came to be known as the Rainbow Bridge, the one that people know today. That bridge was marked by a ceremony in 1939, during the first visit of a reigning monarch to Canada. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth visited the Niagara area. Queen Elizabeth, known to most of us as the Queen Mother, inaugurated the Queen Elizabeth Way in the summer of 1939. As well it marked the beginning of the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls.
That has been a very important part of the history of our area. Indeed when I returned to the House of Commons in 2004 after an absence of a number of years, in one of my first addresses to Parliament I talked about border issues, about the bridges in our area. One member said to me that it was nice to hear me talk about those bridges and of course it is important to me because I come from Niagara Falls and I have all these international spans. I replied that the international spans are important to the Niagara Falls riding and the Niagara Peninsula, but they are important to all of Canada. That is why we all have to be very concerned about what happens at Canada's international borders. It is not just a Niagara issue. It is not just an Ontario issue. It is a Canadian issue.
I am very pleased about anything that clarifies the governance and the regulation issues. Canada's border is a subject in which I am very interested. Again, I appreciate that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, introduced this bill in the House of Commons right after the federal accountability act. 
The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is the largest bilateral exchange in the world and supports millions of jobs in each country. Since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989, two-way traffic has tripled. Under NAFTA, trade has grown steadily each year with over $1.8 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border every single day. NAFTA trade with the United States is responsible for more than half of our gross domestic product.
I am proud to have been part of the government which fought hard to negotiate and ratify the free trade agreement. Its legacy is one of economic prosperity and vibrant job creation.
 I have to note in passing that what we heard today was déjà vu. All the people who were not able to figure out how important free trade would be to Canada cannot figure out how important the deal is on softwood lumber. It was the same thing. Some members of the opposition told me they did not like the agreement. I told them that our Prime Minister has pulled together a consensus of most of the industry. He has gathered the support of Atlantic Canada, the three largest provinces in Canada, all under Liberal governments, and two countries. That is not an agreement; that is a miracle.
I know how significant and important the implementation of free trade was back in 1989. There were naysayers but they all came on board eventually. I do not have to tell hon. members that in 13 years of Liberal administration the Liberals did not want to touch one bit of that. They may not have made a decision on anything else but they certainly did not want to make any decisions to change that. It will stand the test of time.
Getting back to the importance of Bill C-3, it is absolutely essential that we have clarity at our borders. On average, over 45,000 trucks cross the border every day and those 45,000 trucks are crossing in approximately eight to ten traffic. Add to the mix hundreds of thousands of cars and there always is that potential for bottlenecks. There is a potential for slowdowns at the border. This is something we must always be aware of.
I am very pleased that Bill C-3 will clarify the rules and clearly establish the federal government's role. The proposed bill would prohibit the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the governor in council.
As set out in the bill, approval would be sought by making an application to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the guidelines governing the approval process established by the minister. If these guidelines are followed and the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the minister during the process are met, then the minister will recommend to the governor in council to approve the construction. That is a good idea and it is the way it should be done. 
Currently there exists no formal process for approving the construction of new international bridges and tunnels. There are a number of permits and approvals that must be obtained. This is the way it has been in the past for everything under Fisheries and Oceans Canada, even as part of Transport Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but each of these permits is for a particular purpose. There is no legislation that deals specifically with the subject of Bill C-3, international bridge crossings and tunnels.
For example, in the case of approvals that must be sought under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the goal is to protect navigable waters and ensure that navigation is not disrupted. That is all well and good and these are all important, but the time has come to pass legislation of this particular type. 
We have noticed over the years that it has been, quite frankly, a patchwork of different arrangements, private, municipal, provincial or federal. As I indicated earlier in talking about the history of the Niagara area, these were sometimes brought about because of necessity. We are not attempting in any way to alter that state of ownership, but the federal government has to lead. This is why I appreciate the leadership of my colleague. 
I think this will be welcomed by our American colleagues. Of course, as are many of the things we do, this is a partnership with our major trading partner, but I am quite sure the Americans will welcome this. I know the people of the Niagara Peninsula will welcome it. Again I thank my colleague for bringing this so quickly to the attention of the House.
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague. He says that the softwood lumber agreement is a miracle. Personally, I would say that the Prime Minister was more a magician than a miracle worker. After all, he was the only one who made a billion dollars disappear, so the agreement was not a miracle, it was magic.
Coming back to the bill, I would like to ask the hon. member the same question my colleague asked. Clause 14 states that the government may make regulations about the maintenance—I repeat, the maintenance—and repair of bridges. It can also make regulations about the operation, use and security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.
My question is clear. Repairs to these bridges are paid for by the municipality that makes the repairs. The cost therefore comes out of Quebec infrastructure funds. In the case of the Sutton bridge, Vermont pays 70% of the cost of repairs or maintenance. How will the government be able to order repairs to a bridge in Quebec, such as the Sutton bridge, when we know that the Americans are going to pay 70% of the bill?
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on a couple of items. He talked about the Prime Minister's role in the softwood lumber deal. Of course that is an international matter. It is not contained in the international bridges and tunnels act, but certainly the international bridges and tunnels act helps facilitate the regime that accommodates international trade. The hon. member would have to agree that we have seen outstanding leadership by the present Prime Minister on this issue. I think all members of the House have to give him credit for the leadership that he has established in this area. I do not see how we could do otherwise.
The hon. member knows and members of his party know how many times we raised this matter. We were in opposition too and raised this matter with the former Liberal government asking it to please deal with this problem and to get on this file. We heard empty rhetoric. We saw members of the former government going out of their way to exacerbate relations with the United States. I do not know what could be more incredible.
At one point they were criticizing the Americans for doing better than us on greenhouse gas emissions. That is one I could never figure out, criticizing them because they are doing better than we are. I am not making this up, to use a term that was used in the election; that actually happened.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Thirty per cent of our economy is natural resources. That is why we are producing it up here.
Rob Nicholson:  Mr. Speaker, we now have a Prime Minister who, having been in office a little less than three months, has solved this problem. He has shown the kind of leadership that Canadians want and deserve in this country. 
 Mr. Speaker, are my 10 minutes up?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): No, your 10 minutes are not up, but It appears that the hon. member for Beaches—East York would like to ask a question. If the member will be patient, the government House leader will finish and then she can ask her question.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in terms of repairs to international bridges, the local bridge authorities themselves have their own arrangements. I am not familiar with the crossing in the hon. member's riding, but I can tell him that for the international crossings that I talked about in the Niagara area, the local bridge authority is responsible. It raises the money and makes sure those bridges are kept in good repair. I do not want the suggestion to be made or there to be any misunderstanding that I am asking the Minister of Transport to send money to do the repairing and painting that takes place on those bridges, because that work is done through the tolls that are collected. That will continue. The hon. member can be assured of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am inviting questions and comments. Does the hon. member for Beaches—East York wish to be recognized?
Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, usually a member is recognized when a member is standing and I think the Speaker, with all due respect, is interfering in what I was saying. 
Nonetheless, to the hon. member across who said that we are not keeping up with the environment, Canada is an energy producing country. Thirty per cent of Canada's pollution is attributed directly to the oil sands and energy production. We sell clean energy to the Americans. This is why in fact they are able to make their claims.
Is the hon. member saying that one way of getting rid of it is to cut back on the production of energy in this country? That would be one quick way of doing it. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting, because what he said earlier was absolutely not true.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Order. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think what I was saying, and I will make it very clear, is that I think the Liberals had a terrible record on the environment. That is what it is. It is not anything more complicated than that.
 All I said was that it was a bit much to be criticizing our neighbours for doing better than we are doing. I am not making this up: on greenhouse gas emissions, they did better. Everybody wants to do better on this, but to gratuitously start criticizing our neighbours is a bit much, that is all I was saying. If the member wants to talk about the environment, we have an outstanding environment minister and she has a tremendous knowledge in this particular area.
As for the member, there were members of her party who did not like free trade once upon a time, and look at them all today, they all like free trade. All I would say to the member is that I think she will like the Conservative government's record on the environment. If she has her doubts or worries today, we will overcome those doubts, just like the free trade. Good heavens above, the member's own party is now defending the GST. They do not want us to cut it.
Do we remember when the Liberals were going to abolish the GST? They were going around with little erasers. They were going to get rid of the GST. Now they are maybe the last group in Canada defending that tax. On the one hand, it is very impressive, but I think it is a little bit misguided. They should be open to change, I say. We are going to reduce that GST and I think it is a good thing. I think we should move forward on it.
Again, though, this bill is about international bridges, tunnels and the facilitation of trade between our two countries. Just as I agree with the federal accountability act, and just as I am so pleased at the agreement on softwood, I have to say that I am very pleased that this piece of legislation is before the House. I hope the hon. member will support it when it comes time to have this chamber approve it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): We have two minutes left under questions and comments. I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hon. leader of the government for taking the opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in finally getting a resolution to a long term challenge that has faced the country for years, and that is the softwood lumber challenge. It is interesting to hear how members opposite keep affording the House leader the opportunity to remind them how great a deal this is for all of Canada.
 I also want to recognize the Minister of Transport for his leadership in bringing forth this piece of legislation. Although I do not have any international bridges in my riding, I wonder if the hon. leader of the government could explain this opportunity. He talked about four bridges in his riding. Could he give us some indication of the discussions he has had over all these years while waiting for the opportunity to actually move forward on this? Could the member please elaborate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I will recognize the hon. leader of the government, but he cannot elaborate very much because he has barely 40 seconds.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that perhaps I could also explain the English constitution at the same time and just put them together in 40 seconds.
We have two bridge authorities: the Niagara Falls Bridge authority and the Peace Bridge authority. The two of them operate along the Niagara River. Again, they have been very much a part of the lives of everyone in that area. Quite frankly, they have done a great job in providing a service, and not just to the people of our area. As I have always emphasized, they provide a service to Canada. This is one of the great gateways to the nation. It is a very important component. This is why I am sure they applaud legislation like Bill C-3.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support for Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, and applaud the government for moving ahead on this important piece of legislation.
All Canadians have a vested interest in the bill. Whether it be ensuring security at our borders, protecting trade and our economic interests or simply crossing the border for shopping or for a holiday, the bill will affect all Canadians. 
The new provisions in the act will give the federal government the ability to intervene as needed. We know the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that the ownership of these structures does not interfere in any way with national interests or public policy objectives.
From coast to coast, Canadians stand to gain a lot from enhancing the flow of goods across the border. While the riding of Simcoe—Grey, my riding, is not immediately on the border, we are only a few hours away and our economic prosperity depends heavily on the Windsor corridor.
Many members may remember the provisions in Bill C-3 when they were part of former Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, which died on the Order Paper on November 28, 2005, the day the Liberal government fell.
Like many other issues, the Liberals say that they would have had that bill passed and this bill passed if it had not been for the Conservatives bringing them down. Of course, we have to stop and ask the Liberals why they waited. They had 13 years and over a decade of that was majority rule, so I do not really understand what they were waiting for. They had all kinds of time to pass this legislation and many others legislation and they simply did not.
The people of Simcoe—Grey, like many other Canadians, rejected the Liberals last January. They voted for change and in my riding they voted for it overwhelmingly.
I am happy to see that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, has chosen to make this bill one of his department's legislative priorities.
The provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels were somewhat neglected in debate the last time the bill was before the House. I will take this opportunity to discuss a few of the issues that these provisions will address.
We are fortunate to have in Canada a national transportation system that links every corner of this country because the vast system opens our doors to the rest of the world and to the commercial markets beyond our borders. We are a trading nation in an age of globalization.
We rely on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in order to maintain our prosperity and quality of life. No one knows this better than the citizens of my riding of Simcoe—Grey.
I am sure that all members will agree that our international bridges and tunnels are an integral part of our nation's transportation system and provide a necessary link to our country's trade with the U.S.
 I do not think we can emphasize enough how these crossings are important to international trade. For instance, I have Honda in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. It is a commonly known fact that 85% of the cars manufactured in Canada are exported to the United States. 
Some of my potato farmers are shipping their potatoes to New York and Pennsylvania. We also have Alcoa Wheel Products in Simcoe—Grey, a large producer of rims in Collingwood and it is shipping daily to the big three in Michigan.
Simply put, the U.S. is our largest trading partner and the people of Simcoe—Grey depend heavily on this trading relationship.
I believe something like three-quarters of Canadians live within a two to three hour drive of the border, so not surprisingly, 85% of Canada's total exports to the world go to the United States and 59% of our imports come from the United States.
In terms of value, more than $531 billion was traded between Canada and the U.S. in 2003. In terms of jobs, 200 million jobs in both countries exist because of the trade between our two countries.
In 2003 over 834,000 Canadians were employed in the transportation industry. Of the $531 billion traded in 2003, 63% was transported over the Canada-U.S. border by truck, an estimated 13 million trucks. That is about 36,000 trucks crossing the Canada-U.S. border every day, or an average of one truck every 2.5 seconds.
 If truth be told, almost 75% of this truck traffic was concentrated at six border crossings: four bridges in Ontario, including Windsor, one land crossing in Quebec, and one land crossing in British Columbia.
In fact, our exports, particularly in the automotive industry, are an important and essential step in the manufacturing of U.S. products. While many companies in the automotive manufacturing and parts sectors are diversifying with new plants around the world, there is one advantage that Canada will always have and the people of Simcoe--Grey understand this well. Geography will always be our ally and allow us to meet the just in time delivery demands that the automotive industry is increasingly moving toward. The industry relies on our products being delivered on time and not being unduly held up at our borders. 
The highly concentrated nature of freight movement in Canada is largely responsible for specific local bottlenecks or choke points. Anyone who passes through the Windsor corridor will tell us that. With the high volume of trade and tourism with the U.S., our bridges and tunnels often become choke points.
 Any regular bottleneck has the ability to put pressure on the entire transportation system. Bottlenecks that originate at freight transfer points and at the border can affect overall freight movements within trade corridors. As I mentioned before, the manufacturers in Simcoe--Grey using the Windsor corridor know this all too well.
Considering the staggering statistics and the importance of these crossings to our international trade and tourism, it is surprising that there has never been any one piece of legislation that deals with international bridges and tunnels. The new provisions of this bill would enhance the oversight of the federal government. They would ensure that international crossings are being managed and operated in a manner that prioritizes the public interest for safety, security, and efficient cross-border movement.
The bill would confirm that international bridges and tunnels are the responsibility of the federal government. It would give the government the authority to govern and regulate in all aspects of international bridges and tunnels, such as their construction, maintenance and operation. There are today several projects to construct new bridges that are either under way or being contemplated and there are renovations planned for others. These would be subject to the new bill.
The bill would also provide a means for the government to ensure the safety and security of these crossings. By putting systems in place and imposing standards, the bill would make these crossings less vulnerable to terrorist threats and help keep our borders more secure, while at the same time promoting the efficient flow of goods and people at these crossings--all priorities of this government.
I am pleased to lend my support to this bill, which has been a long time in coming. The people of Simcoe--Grey, like most Canadians, demanded change. I am proud to be a part of a government that is taking action. Canada desperately needs this infrastructure. The new Conservative government will continue to do what is best for Canada.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the town of Leamington is within my riding of Chatham-Kent--Essex. As members know, Leamington is the largest producer of greenhouse products in North America, as a matter of fact. My constituents have repeatedly shown concern about the movement of goods to over two hundred million customers that lie south of the border.
With the tabling of this bill and from what we have heard today, can I go back and tell my constituents that we as a government are moving in the right direction, that we can ensure that these goods produced in Leamington will continue to flow and that trade will continue as well?
[Interjection]
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the hon. member know that I had an opportunity to visit Leamington some time ago, long before I became a member of Parliament, and I had a tour of some of the greenhouses there. I was working with the provincial government for many years. At that time, there was a problem with respect to insurance for some of the greenhouses. I was happy to participate and play a key role in ensuring that they did in fact have the insurance they needed to continue to operate their businesses. Leamington is a beautiful place and I look forward to being there again.
The hon. member asked about the border being improved so that his producers could have continued access to the United States. I would say the answer to that question is yes. This is an excellent first step in ensuring that we have improved border crossings so we can improve our trade with the United States and ensure that our trade is not delayed in any way. I would suggest to the hon. member that the answer would be yes.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions and comments on a number of issues relating to trade between Canada and the United States.
My first question relates to the passport issue in the United States that will have a significant negative impact upon visits to Canada. In my province of British Columbia we are already seeing the effects of that. In the last two to three months we have seen a progressive decline in visits by Americans to Canada. The drop has been quite precipitous and unprecedented over the last few years. 
What is the member's government going to do to work with the U.S. Congress in addressing this issue which, if not dealt with very quickly, will have a profound negative impact on tourism within Canada by Americans? It will also cause a significant downturn in a number of cities that rely on tourism. What the member may want to consider, at the very least, is that the U.S. plan be deferred for one to two years while Americans have an opportunity to grasp the knowledge that they need a passport to enter Canada and, second, that they have the time to pursue this.
The second issue concerns Canadian passports in Canada. I know this proposal has been put forth but I would ask that the government fast track it. Canadian passports are valid for five years and the sensible solution would be to extend the validity of passports to 10 years. If passports were extended to 10 years it would decrease administrative costs in terms of passport applications, would save the taxpayers money and would actually facilitate the movement of people back and forth because they would not have to keep renewing their passport on an ongoing basis.
My last point deals with Vancouver and the Lions Gate Bridge which needs significant infrastructure moneys. It is a major artery for Vancouver and for people moving in a north-south direction. Does the member's government have any plans to work with British Columbia and put money into infrastructure programs, such as the Lions Gate Bridge, and the Bear Mountain overpass and the MacKenzie Avenue overpass in Victoria?
[Interjection]
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, on the member's first question concerning passports, in my riding of Simcoe—Grey I have processed over 12,000 passports through my constituency office in anticipation that perhaps this could happen one day.
When we were in opposition I recall that it was the former Liberal government that did not even prepare a response for the American government into what the Canadian government's thoughts were on the move that it was making to require passports. In fact, we called for an emergency debate on it. Am I wrong on this? I remember that we called for an emergency debate in the House of Commons at the last minute because the former Liberal government did absolutely nothing to advise or work with the Americans to see what could be done about this.
The hon. member used the word “quickly” in his question but I have a hard time taking the word “quickly” seriously considering the fact that the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the issue.
In this day and age, with terrorism and such, we do have a new reality at our borders. We do need to work with the United States to ensure that our borders are safe and that Canadians and Americans are safe. I know the hon. minister responsible for the file is working very diligently on this and if he has something to report to the House at some point I am sure he will do so. In the meantime, I will continue to work with my constituents to process their passports as fast as I can so that my constituents will not be waiting in case this does proceed. However it is the new reality for us.
The member also talked a little bit about Bill C-3 and international bridges, which is what we are discussing today. At the present time there are 24 existing international bridges, all with various forms of ownership and governance structures. The degree of oversight exercised by the federal government varies on all of these 24 international bridges. For example, the federal government is not able to obtain any detailed information on even security issues from all of the bridge authorities.
At the present time we do not have the legislative authority to effectively govern these structures. The proposed regulatory framework will enable the government to provide a consistent approach to ensure that the structures are safe and secure, and that they are being managed and maintained for the long term benefit of all Canadians.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member was here earlier listening to my speech and was obviously paying attention to what I was suggesting. 
Is the government interested in ownership of these facilities and is it willing to come forward with the significant investments that will be required quickly if we are going to make these facilities both safe and secure?
[Interjection]
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the 24 existing international bridges and the fact that we have different forms of ownership and government structures and that the degree of oversight exercised by the federal government varies. This bill is an attempt to ensure that we do have some kind of a certain structure in addressing all of the international bridges. I am sure that from this bill other policy discussions will follow and we will have further discussions later down the road.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak to the House on Bill C-3. It is an honour to be able to provide information to the House about issues as vast as the ones on the legislative agenda of this Parliament.
I want to start off by saying that I think my colleague from the Conservative Party was rather truthful when he said that the Prime Minister had provided leadership on the softwood lumber issue. However, the question is: What kind of leadership did he provide?
We have a free trade agreement and various portions of that agreement have dispute mechanisms for a number of different items. However, with regard to the softwood lumber deal, I think it is the first time we have capitulated to an environmental beef by the Government of the United States by telling the Americans that they can set standards for us in Canada. As an environmentalist, that is an interesting turn of events and that is interesting leadership that has been provided by the Prime Minister in his very short time in his position.
When we think of the environment let us take the hog farms of North America. Hog farms pollute the rivers to an incredible degree. They use a provision many times and call themselves farms. They get the same rights as farmers in the United States to put their silage into the environment. That silage from 100,000 hogs is equivalent to the manure from a city of a million people and they are sticking it in rivers and such in the United States. Does that mean that Canada can now put punitive tariffs on bacon from the United States? Does that mean that we have better environmental standards so we are going to go over there and deal with them in that fashion? I would say that would be the kind of leadership that I would be looking for from the Prime Minister.
Leadership is what one makes of it. The leadership that has been provided by the Prime Minister on this issue is a sellout. It is a sellout to many people in this country. It is a sellout to industries that have set up and are running in a certain fashion and trying to remain competitive with their U.S. counterparts. They have been encouraged to follow a certain direction by our governments and now we have cut the rug out from underneath them.
I will now get back to the position of this bill. One of the things the bill talks about is a streamlined approval process for bridges, tunnels and those sorts of things that cross the border. As I said earlier, I am concerned about what local people have to deal with when a federal government has the responsibility and the authority to put new transportation systems, new linkages, in through their particular part of the country. A streamlined approval process suggests to me, coming from a region of the country, the Northwest Territories, where the federal government does most of the approval processes for all development, that somebody will be ignored and somebody's concerns will be relegated to the dustbin and we will not have a proper process. 
 When the federal government initiates projects, when it owns projects and when it has a streamlined approval process, we have to be very careful with what goes on. We have to be careful for the people who live in the regions where the federal government will be working. When we put all those powers, authorities, interests and ownership in the hands of the federal government and then it says it will streamline the process of approval, we know the people in the communities will suffer. It is extremely important that we give people in communities the opportunity to be consulted clearly and effectively, with proper resources, where they can make the case for the issues they think are important, when something like a new highway or bridge cuts across their lands, or when there is a change in direction of transportation requirement, or when new roads, or bridges or tunnels are built in a community where there had been none before.
Those are issues I am aware of in the north.
 We are facing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I addressed this earlier today. We have a minister who has said to us that the government is in favour of it. However, the minister is responsible for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, one of the very acts that decides the details, the direction and the ultimate approval for the pipeline. We are in an environmental assessment process right now. A panel is sitting, supposedly making judgments for all of us, and the minister has already decided the government supports that project. Where does that leave us?
That is an active example of how important it is when the federal government has control over projects, that we have not streamlined approval projects, but a meaningful and consultative process that can drive correct solutions, that can leave people on the ground comfortable with what has happened to them.
We need to promote rail transportation for the future of our country. It is an excellent way of transportation. We need to improve rail corridors. We need to put money into the things that will allow the rail system to move more effectively, that will attract back not only freight but passenger traffic, which will make a system that works for Canadians. Prices of energy keeps up and congestion is a matter of fact for many of the people who live in the areas along the Canada-U.S. border.
We have policy challenges with the border such as the western hemisphere travel initiative which will require all Canadian and American travellers to have passports to travel to and from the United States. Once again, we see leadership of our Prime Minister on this matter. That leadership is taking us in a certain direction and that direction can be difficult for all Canadians as well as Americans.
Canadians standing up to ensure reasonable access at our borders will help Americans as well. This is something we should not give up. We have a vested interest with the great country to the south to maintain a civil approach at the borders and to maintain the opportunities for Canadians and Americans to share a common border and use it effectively in their daily lives. 
This is something we share and we need to make the point to the United States that we can work with them on this and make it happen. However, let us not accept a knee-jerk reaction to terrorist incidents to upset the direction that these countries have worked on for so long.
I travel to other places in the world such as Europe where people can leave their passports in their pockets because they do not need them. They can walk across borders and that is okay. People understand how to live together and we need to do that between our two great countries. That is the way we have to go. The authoritarian regime in the United States right now will pass. We will have an opportunity to deal with people who are more logical and reasonable. Let us encourage our leadership to recognize and respect that.
I know I am running out of time on this opportunity to speak to the bill, but I am sure other points will be raised by other people. 
The New Democratic Party supports this effort. We would like to see more from the old Bill C-44 brought forward. If that is something the Minister of Transport is planning to do in the future, I think he will see a lot of support in this party to see more effort on this front. At the same time amendments are required for this bill. We look forward to it going to committee. 
As always, everyone can be sure that New Democrats are here to make this Parliament and legislation work. We can work together. We can make better legislation for Canadians. We can sometimes throw out rhetoric, but it does not mean we cannot be critical. We can have criticism without being rhetorical. I would like to see us all work toward that because this is a Parliament of ideas and direction for the whole country.
It has been a great opportunity to speak here today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member enjoyed this opportunity and he might like to know that he has seven minutes remaining at the next sitting of the House.
It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)